Top 10 Ways to Know the Earth is Not Flat
A few months ago I released an experiment video explaining how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth using the shadow of sticks. The method was performed almost two millenia ago, and produced quite accurate results (considering the ‘equipment’ used). But it was far from being the only (or first) method to understand our planet’s shape.
Humanity has known the Earth to be round for a few millenia and I’ve been meaning to refine that video and show more of these methods of how we figured out the world is not flat. I’ve had a few ideas on how to do that, but recently got an interesting incentive, when Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) wrote about a recently published BBC article about “The Flat Earth” society. Phil claims it’s ridiculous to even bother rebutting the flat earth society – and I tend to agree. But the history of our species’ intellectual pursuit is important and interesting, and it’s very much well worth writing about. You don’t need to denounce all science and knowledge and believe in a kooky conspiracy theory to enjoy some historical factoids about humanity’s quest for space.
Though I have researched this subject, I am quite certain there will be much more to be said about it – feel free to add more in the comments. If all goes well, this might actually be a good post to refer to whenever anyone wants to discuss a bit of ancient science and the source of cosmological thought.
On we go to the top 10 ways to know the Earth is unequivocally, absolutely, positively, 100% not flat:
(1) The Moon
Now that humanity knows quite positively that the Moon is not a piece of cheese or a playful god, the phenomena that accompany it (from its monthly cycles to lunar eclipses) are well-explained. It was quite a mystery to the ancient Greeks, though, and in their quest for knowledge, they came up with a few insightful observations that helped humanity figure out the shape of our planet.
Aristotle (who made quite a lot of observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth.
Since the earth is rotating (see the “Foucault Pendulum” experiment for a definite proof, if you are doubtful), the consistent oval-shadow it produces in each and every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical – absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat.
Refer to the following image from Wikipedia for more details on what happens during a lunar eclipse:
(2) Ships and the Horizon
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.
Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.
(3) Varying Star Constellations
This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.
After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and […] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained with a round surface, and Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:
(4) Shadows and Sticks
If you stick a stick in the [sticky] ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:
But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:
Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately. To see this demonstrated, refer to my experiment video about Eratosthenes and the circumference of the earth – “The Earth’s curvature is tasty!“.
(5) Seeing Farther from Higher
Standing in a flat plateau, you look ahead of you towards the horizon. You strain your eyes, then take out your favorite binoculars and stare through them, as far as your eyes (with the help of the binocular lenses) can see.
Then, you climb up the closest tree – the higher the better, just be careful not to drop those binoculars and break their lenses. You then look again, strain your eyes, stare through the binoculars out to the horizon.
The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomena is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:
(6) Ride a Plane
If you’ve ever taken a trip out of the country, specifically long-destination trips, you could notice two interesting facts about planes and the Earth:
- Planes can travel in a relatively straight line a very long time and not fall off any edges. They can also, theoretically (and some do, though with stops along the way), circle the earth.
Correction (Courtesy of Klaynos, from scienceforums.net): Apparently, planes can circle the Earth without stopping! - If you look out the window on a trans-Atlantic flight, you can, most of the times, see the curvature of the earth in the horizon. The best view of the curvature used to be on the Concorde, but that plane’s long gone. I can’t wait seeing the pictures from the new plane by “Virgin Galactic” – the horizon should look absolutely curved, as it actually is from a distance.
(A picture of the curved horizon from a Concorde plane can be seen here).
(7) Look at Other Planets
The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics – specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances – our planet is the same.
In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they are taking this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.
In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it (click here to see a beautiful video reconstruction of his observations). He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet – a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept as it followed a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.
A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (as our sun would have to behave quite differently to accustom a “flat earth” theory), what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets orbits, and the effects of gravity, etc). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it.
(8) The Existence of Timezones
The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.
In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.
This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.
Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.
(9) The Center of Gravity
There’s an interesting fact about mass: it attracts things to it. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object.
Consider a sphere. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you. Imagine an ant (perhaps the same one from the previous point) walking around on a crystal ball. Assuming the crystal ball is polished, the ant’s only indication of movement would be the fact it’s moving its feet. The scenery (and shape of the surface) would not change at all.
Consider a flat plane. The center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less – if you want to be more accurate, feel free to do the entire [shriek] integration [shriek] process), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
I am quite positive that even for Australians an apple falls downwards, but if you have your doubts, I urge you to try it out – just make sure it’s nothing that can break or hurt you. Just in case gravity is consistent after all.
Further reading about the center of mass and about distribution of mass can be found here. And if you are brave enough to handle some equations (not involving integration), you can learn some more about Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
(10) Images from Space
In the past 60 years of the space exploration era of humanity’s history, we’ve launched satellites, probes and people to space. Some of them got back, some of them still float through the solar system (and almost beyond it) and transmit amazing images over to our receivers on Earth.
Here’s a list of some of the pictures we’ve seen from space throughout the years:
October 24, 1946: A group of scientists in the New Mexico desert saw the first grainy photo of the Earth. The photograph was taken from a height of 65 miles (104.6 kilometers) by a 35-millimeter motion picture camera riding on a V-2 missile.
August 14, 1959: First crude photo of the Earth from the Explorer VI satellite. The photo showed a sun-lit area of the Pacific ocean and cloud coverage. It was taken from about 17,000 miles (27,350 kilometers) above the surface.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)
June 5, 1966: Astronaut Eugene Cernan took this amazing picture of Gemini 9 and the Earth during his EVA (Extravehicular Activity). The spacecraft itself and Cernan’s “umbilical” (the cord that keeps him connected to the spacecraft’s systems) are visible on top of a beautiful background of the Earth.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)
August 23, 1966: First view of Earth from the Moon. This picture was taken by Lunar Orbiter I when the spacecraft was on its 16th orbit and was just about to pass behind the Moon. (Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)
December 29, 1966: A spectacular view of the rising Earth from the Moon, taken by the crew of Apollo 8 after coming out from the other side of the Moon, approximately 239,000 miles (384,000 kilometers) from Earth.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)
December 1, 1968: Photo of Earth from Apollo 8. This photograph was taken by an 80-mm lense, at a point very close to the Moon.
(Image Courtesy of the NASA GRIN Website)
More pictures from the NASA Missions throughout the years can be found at NASA GRIN Website: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/index.html
Brief List of Manned Missions to Space
In the past 60 years humanity’s quest for Space has produced hundreds of pictures, videos and audio records from more than just the United States. Some of these countries used to be enemies. Some still are. The amount of proofs, from opposing countries and ‘sides’, for the non-flatness of the Earth, if nothing else, should cast serious doubt on any possibility for the existance of “Global Conspiracy”. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the first missions to space:
- April 12, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-1): Yuri Gagarin, becomes first man in space.
- May 5, 1961 (USA; Mercury-3): Alan Shepard becomes first American in space.
- July 21, 1961 (USA; Mercury-4): Gus Grissom performs the second sub-orbital flight at an altitude of 126 miles (203 kilometers).
- August 6, 1961 (USSR; Vostok-2): Gherman Titov becomes the first man to spend an entire day in space.
- February 20, 1962 (USA; Mercury-6): John Glenn orbits the Earth at a distance of 100-162 miles (161-261 kilometers).
- May 24, 1962 (USA; Mercury-7): Scott Carpenter orbits the Earth three times.
- August 11, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-3): Andrian Nikolayev leads the first four-day flight, and first “group” flight with Vostok-4.
- August 12, 1962 (USSR; Vostok-4): Pavel Popovich mans the other half of the “group” flight with Vostok-4.
- October 3, 1962 (USA; Mercury-8): Walter Schirra orbits the Earth six times.
- May 15, 1963 (USA; Mercury-9): Gordon Cooper pilots the longest (and last) Mercury mission, lasting 34 hours in space.
- June 14, 1963 (USSR; Vostok-5): Valery Bykovsky is the first to stay 5 days in space.
- June 16, 1963 (USSR, Vostok-6): Valentina Tereshkova becomes the first woman in space, spending three days in orbit.
You can find a full list of the chronology of manned space missions at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
More Methods Throughout History
- Abu Rayhan Biruni (sometimes known as “The Father of Geodesy“), has managed to calculate the circumference of the Earth using complex triangulation equations. I couldn’t find the actual calculation, or the method, so I can’t judge it this as a relatively easy “DIY” way to do it, but it’s still worth mentioning. If anyone has any more information about the method used, do post in the comments.
- Bedford Level Experiment: At the Bedford river in Norfolk, England. The experiments were done initially in order to prove that the Earth is flat. Though the first results of this experiment seemed to agree with the flat-earth contention, later attempts to repeat this experiment agreed with the fact that the Earth is, in fact, spherical.
- A Bit of History: Neil Armstrong narrating this video of the Earth as viewed from the Apollo 11 Command Module on its way to the Moon.
Credits and Thanks
This is a very long post, but it was fun to write (and learn about!). There is some credit due to other people, and I am not one to hold out the cheers:
- Klaynos, from scienceforums, for his Physics mastery late at night.
- insane_alien from scienceforums, for directing me on the path of a good #9.
- Cap’n Refsmmat from scienceforums, for clarity issues, physics help, and saving you (the reader) some of my ramblings.
- Keren, for her editorial help and general (good) advice.
- Daniel and KerenG, for their mental and grammatical support.
Extra Resources
- Who figured out the Earth is round?
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html - Earth from Space (from NASA)
http://earth.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/efs/ - First Photo from Space 1946: http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.html
- History Channel’s “History of Space Exploration” interactive website (with Videos):
- http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=51655&display_order=5&mini_id=1438
- Non stop flight around the world: http://www.didyouknow.cd/aroundtheworld/flight.htm
- Foucault Pendulum (in Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum - Galileo Galilei (in Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
- Galileo’s Observations and Inventions: http://www.2020site.org/galileo/observations.html
- Spherical Earth (in Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth - The Flat Earth: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
- Lunar Eclipse (in Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse - History of Geodesy (in Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy
1683 comments
Reply
Great site, love it!
I’m struggling to believe that the picture shown at:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/concorde/122.asp
… was actually taken from a Concorde (cruising height approx 11 miles according to that page).
Doesn’t the curvature in that image look greater than in another picture you link to:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.html
… which was “taken from an altitude of 65 miles”, according to that page?
I think the sciencemuseum pic is just there to illustrate the curvature of the Earth – their text is arguably misleading. (And if they’ve changed the picture since you linked to that page, fair enough!)
@SB, that’s a good point, I found that picture on the museum’s site, but that was after I have read in a few places that you can see the curvature of the Earth from the concorde.
I have no idea if the caption on that site is wrong or not, but you do make a good point about seeing a bigger curvature than what the 1945 (higher) picture shows. Not sure why this is, perhaps something with the equipment that the picture was taken.
I did, however, find more pictures for the vew from the Concorde:
http://www.travelscholar.com/concorde/page03.html
You can still see the curvature of the Earth throught those pictures, but it seems to support your claim, still, that the picture in the science museum site is either badly captioned or taken with some sort of extra filter.
Thanks for pointing this out.
~moo
Yeah…. maybe you’re right but you forgot The Conspiracy!
Most of the instruments you can buy today are tweaked in a way that make you to *believe* the Earth is round.
Many of the homegrown experiments you show, can be explained for example by hills on a flat ground.
…and we all *know* that nobody ever flew to the moon, don’t we?
BTW: I’m just kidding: I never wrote this, you didn’t see me and I’ve never even been here…
🙂
Zarkov
The flat earthers are so ridiculous that it almost seems like the main reason they insist on “their” view is only to get attention…
It’s completely insane.. by today’s standard of average intelligence one can quickly come to the conclusion that the earth is round simply by observing a few things in an average day:
The sunrise/sunset
Shadows
The moon that sometimes puts in an appearance even during the day…
Stars
etc…. etc…
And to the folks at flat earth society who have now gone as far as to say sattelites do not exist:
Lemme ask you a question to rival the stupidity of that statemant but has more merit:
How does google earth manage to work then…. ?
and yes I can see you standing in youre back yard thinking up new shitty theories on why the earth is flat!!!
IDIOTA!
Actually, most of the close up images from google earth are taken from low altitude planes.
Most of? but not all? lol….. O.K. so what is your’e point? because what ever it is it definitely does not disprove my point…… Flat earthers should stop seeking attention and seek a cure for cancer or sumthing with all that spare time…..
Ciao losers
@Bendix,
Normally I’d say “it’s sometimes hard to bring yourself to agree with people even if they’re right” but, to be fair, just you’re saying that the Earth is round so you’re not exactly getting marks that.
When saying that “humanity” has known the earth is round for millennia, you have to remember that only a minuscule number of thinkers had been privy to this knowledge until the rise of science in the 17th century: the vast majority of humanity lived within the context of their day-to-day lives, that is, within a “flat-earth” context. This was “common sense” to most people because it was, sensually speaking, what one experienced everyday. This kind of phenomena is the reason why most Americans still believe that evolution is either untrue–because it supposedly contradicts the Bible–or is only a “theory”. You would have had the same problem if you had tried to convince Europeans the earth was round in the 15th century, they would have thought you either a wacko or a heretic. A certain Polish astronomer named Copernicus dealt with this problem, just as biologists have had to deal with it since Darwin.
SO in effect what your’e saying in layman’s terms is: people are smarter to day than they where hundreds of years ago? thanks man.. who knew?
Just imagine my pulling out my laptop in front of the vaticcan a couple of hundred years ago to spy on the pope with a satellite… that would have gotten me into trouble….
@spinoza,
I think you’re confusing “didn’t care” with “thought the Earth was flat”. Why would a medieval person’s life be affected by thinking the Earth was flat or round? Frankly, how exactly would a modern day person’s life be different? Flat Earthers aren’t gravitationally attracted to the centre of the plane despite their beliefs.
The earth is flat becuse it says in the book of Isaiah in the Bible that the eart his flat.
That is complete misinterpretation….
Abu Rayhan Biruni’s method was discussed on a BBC4 program in the UK, Science and Islam. Basically, he needs a large cliff or hill next to the sea. He then measures the height of the hill by measuring the angle to the mountain top from two points 100m apart in a direct line to the top of the mountain. He then measures the angle to the flat horizon (hence next to the sea) and uses this data to work out the radius of the earth. I have the episode recorded so I could look up the trig details if you want.
Sounds interesting
Moo biggup!
Unfortunately we have to accept that there will always be dumb people on this planet…
I mean what’s next: http://www.roundisnottheperfectshapeforawheelsociety.com ? COME ON geez
all the plane can see it from flight.
thanks for scientic.
I have doubt about observation using point 2) Ships and the Horizon on a beach. The ship even the largest vessel on earh will still be very small compares to the vast horizon of earth’s diameter considering our
visibility at sea level, the beach. Simply because of the following factors: visibility, the proportion of the ship vs the diameter of the earth’s horizon.
In my opinion a ship will appear to the observer as a dot turning bigger and bigger until it become visible. If our earth is small enough at a proportion of orange and the ant, then we can use point 2 to oberva the curvature of the earth. I wonder does anyone has ever done the experiment as mentioned in point 2) above?
LucyGuy,
The point of this observation is simple: If you look at the horizon through binoculars, you will first see the top of the sail, then the rest of the ship emerges, as if it pops out of the water. This is a very simple experiment to do on your own.
This means that the world is round, quite simply. There is no other way to explain it, other than perhaps that ships drown and resurface when they come close to the beach, which is evidenced as .. well.. false.
No offense, but your opinion here doesn’t matter. Science doesn’t go by opinions, it goes by experiments and observations. The observations are different than your opinion. The observations are ALWAYS the same, without a single exception. That makes your opinion quite clearly wrong.
Experiments WERE done, and showed that ships seem to “pop out” of the water. This is something you can see for yourself.. find a pier close to you and bring binoculars. Look at ships leaving towards the horizon (it will be simpler than waiting for a random ship to approach). If you do it enough times, you will see this phenomenon happening in front of you, and the ships will look like they’re sinking into the water.
If you have video equipment, it might even be easier, as you can just record a few hours worth of ships coming and going and see for yourself.
~moo
@mooeypoo,
Actually, this has been disproved. I can’t say whether I’m for a flat or round earth, but there is scientific proof that Albert Einstein introduced to prove this theory false, or otherwise unusable in this argument.
We forget that light is subject to gravitational pull. Therefore, over large distances, light begins to slope downwards. Over a horizon, the light reflecting off a ship will fall before it reaches the human eye. Therefore, a flat earth would still be plausible.
This theory also discounts the proof of pictures of the round earth from space. At such a great distance away, the light refracting from a flat earth would appear to be pulled down into a perfectly spherical shape.
Again, I don’t I’m not going either way on this argument, I’ve just been taught a lot of credible information from either side.
Flat earth is certaily stupid but evolution is only partially true and many fallacies equate part to whole. Can you explain the following with evolution?
“Considering the long existent of primates on earth, they are good in mimicking, able to use tools and the fact that they have so much similarities with human genes? Being human certainly has the advantage over primates.
Q. Why don’t they choose to evolve into human beings like us instead of evolved into primates if they were once your ancestors? The answer can only accepted with proven science. Therefore do not answer with intelligent design?
LucyGuy,
Evolution is very well evidenced in science, not just history. The only “missing links” the theory has are the same “missing links” a ladder might have in between its steps – that is, there are no missing links. Everything we find in geology, physics, history, chemistry and biology fits absolutely perfectly to the validity of the theory. Interestingly enough, whenever a new evidence is found to support the theory (hence, a new “filling” to a previous “missing link”) it serves to strengthen the theory further, but also create two more missing links “before it” and “after it”.
But those aren’t really missing links, are they?
Furthermore, it seems interesting that you decidedly claim that flat earth is wrong because of scientific evidence, but choose to ignore the same methodology used and state that evolution is wrong. Both explanations are evidenced in science, through the scientific method. If you accept the methodology, they’re both quite well evidenced.
If you discard one, shouldn’t you discard ALL theories that use the scientific method? Otherwise, what system do you use to differ between the theories that are “correct” and those that aren’t, other than personal bias? How do you get rid of personal bias and treat reality objectively facing theories that you like and dislike?
The scientific method is meant to get rid of as much bias as possible in a situation where human beings (who are prone to biases) are doing the research. If you decide to toss that methodology aside, you will encounter problems with biases in your view of reality. How do we learn about objective reality and toss our personal biases aside?
~moo
@mooeypoo,
Just a question, what do you believe to be the strongest evidence behind evolution?
Well, with a powerful telescope, a gigantic ship so that the size of the ship compares to the earth is proportional to an ant to an average size orange. Then, it’s a different story.
Mooeypoo,
You didn’t get my last question clearly otherwise you would have understand that I believe Darwin’s evolution is also wrong. That’s what I am saying, I am discarding both because they use the same scientific methodology namely near-sighted.
Flat earth was very evidence at their time and knowledge. If someone never traveled far at their time, skies to them were more understood as mythology than coordination of the planets. The ground of their great empire underneath them was flat because their measurement of “their flat earth” was limited by their thinking and knowledge. They were probably right at their time and place, but the earth underneath them does not represent the Earth we known today. Because our knowledge of sky today is beyond our own planet.
Change the “earth” into “time” and expand it in the above explanation, you would understand why Darwins theory of evolution is the flat earth equivalent of the formation of living things on earth.
Would someone understand Darwin’s theory of evolution answer my above question why primates choose to be primates rather than humankind after millions of years. If people believe their ancestors are apes, why then their scientific name is different from us. Why didn’t apes classify as homo sapiens?
Why is it there’s a huge difference between the intellectual level of human and primates? Ok, The answer is the brain. But what makes brains of different species so different if they all originated from single cell organism living on the same earth for millions of years?
What determine the branching of species among highly intellectual species? Why can’t you find a living example of apes at the transition stage into human somewhere in the secluded forest?
Until today those believe in Darwin’s evolution still can not resolve the missing link and they just come out with whatever conjecture. Trying whatever unfounded bits and pieces trying to fill the missing link Otherwise they would not call it the “missing link” but some terms more concrete.
If people believe their ancestors are apes, why then their scientific name is different from us. Why didn’t apes classify as homo sapiens?
Genetically speaking, you want the work Chimps, and to be technical, the Bonobo. That’s like asking why we don’t call dogs feline or birds canine. They aren’t the same thing, and unless you’ve been hanging out in a jungle eating bugs from your family, then I don’t think you’re a chimp. Primates are part of the family Hominidae, with Gorillas (gorilla), Humans (homo), and chimps (pan) all being part of the same sub family. The genus seperation is for pretty obvious reasons.
OK, I made a mistake in the sentence “Why is it there’s a huge difference between the intellectual level of human and primates?” I was trying to say human and other primates according to your scientific definition.
The key point I was trying to say are:
1 Humans and apes are from different ancestors even they appear to be similar in the eyes of some scientists. If your scientific knowledge insists you and chimps or bonobos are of the same family or sub family, you are welcome to believe so but we are pretty sure our ancestors were not coming from the same family as the chimps and bonobos. Please don’t ask me why.
2. Science may not be 100% correct. Sometimes they are just the theory of a handful scientists who happened to know more than the majority. Time and time again many so called scientific facts had turned out to be wrong. E.g. are the flat earth theory in the old days, Pluto as a planet, etc. The more powerful tools and data we got, the more we get closer to the truth.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0
If you feel you have definitive proof the earth is not flat without understanding Flat Earth Theory, I’d like to hear it.
I thought that’s what I did… is there any “proof” for the flatness of the Earth that disproves all the points I made? Do show, if there is.
@mooeypoo,
I see what you did there.
@LuckyGuy,
LuckyGuy,
From what I’ve come to know, species evolve as species, not a single organism at a time. We don’t find half-evolved chimp/humans in the rainforest because we ARE the evolved and evolving creatures. Every species that exists today is in the product as well as in the process of evolving. Difference in similar species such as the different classifications of Homos are due to separation of some sort in time for a long period of time, be it geographic or social. They became separated and evolved so differently that they became separate species. But there are no members ‘left behind’ evolution-wise according to this theory. This is just the most widely accepted theory in science.
I’m a creationist but I’ve done a lot of research from either point of view and I find it all fascinating 🙂 I hope this helps
what’s the distance in kilometer if a man with the height of 1.7m stand on sea to the point of the sightview limit of the earth’s curvature?
I am not surprised such a web site about flat earth theory exists nowadays.
Our society are full of those kind of people. They are the average class in a society. Imagine if everyone are smart like you guys, I am sure you won’t be able to get the affordable services/products you are enjoying now.
Just get any celebrity, someone persuasive to tell some stupid things that appears to be turth, chances are you will get a bunch of followers. To the wise people, “Partial Truth” appears to be truth but is not exactly truth.
There are still people who never leave their hometown their entire life who can esily believe the earth is flat. It’s hard and a waste of time to convince them otherwise.
I believe these links help to clarify the argument on the visibility of earth’s curvature issue. 35,000ft is way to far above sea level.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100124025321AATsJ73
Congratulations for this brilliant & crystal clear compilation of centuries of human doubt & deductive thinking!
cool!
Well… I can see someone’s been successfully trolled… Seriously, there’s no point in arguing with these people. It’s like arguing with the DHMO people, or YouTube commentators. Honestly, they’re just trying to get attention and reaction.
Christian Dillstrom had a book mark to your post. Any idea why? Mobile + social media marketing virtuoso’s do not recommend something without a reason.
@Alivia Hooper,
I don’t know, I would like to believe he liked the post. Otherwise, I’d ask him 😉
We actually account for all of this, as you might have discovered had you researched FET as thoroughly as you did RET.
I would like to point out a few flaws in the arguments against a flat Earth provided.
FET = Flat Earth Theory
RET = Round ‘ ‘
1) This starts with the assumptions that the the darkening of the Moon is a shadow, and that it is of the Earth. Two things that need to be supported.
2) Ships dipping below the horizon can be explained. http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
There have been cases where using a telescope has been able to restore parts of the hull that were “hidden”
4) The assumption “If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow” is not backed up and is contrary to what would be expected in modern FET.
6) Circumnavigation can be explained in FET. You travel in a circle around the Earth, just like in RET.
7) This a form of begging the question. You are assuming the Earth shares enough qualities with other celestial bodies so that they can be classified together. You then use that as an argument to show that the Earth shares properties with other celestial bodies.
8) The Sun travels in a circle along the equator. When the Sun is directly overhead an area, it is noon. Noon is at different times in different areas, ergo time zones are explained.
9) Gravity as we know it does not exist in FET. The Earth accelerated upwards.
The joke is on everyone who is bothered by or spends time trying to refute the Flat Earth Society. Nicely played, FES, nicely played. 😉
I wonder…
If I take a photograph of the horizon with a wideangle 105 deg at eye level (1.75m)
Wkat would be the width of the horizon covered on my final image in km
Thanks in advance,
John d de Vries
I only glanced over the page but I think you forgot the simplest one of all:
Start walking in one direction, when you reach your starting point you’ve disproven that the earth is flat.
i love this site coz it gives a lot of info we need
AWESOME!!
great it really helped in my science essay so thanks and i really appreciate it thanks for making a great website i will recomend it to me friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m struggling to believe that the picture shown at:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/concorde/122.asp
… was actually taken from a Concorde (cruising height approx 11 miles according to that page).
Doesn’t the curvature in that image look greater than in another picture you link to:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.html
… which was “taken from an altitude of 65 miles”, according to that page?
I think the sciencemuseum pic is just there to illustrate the curvature of the Earth – their text is arguably misleading. (And if they’ve changed the picture since you linked to that page, fair enough!)
——————–
@SB, that’s a good point, I found that picture on the museum’s site, but that was after I have read in a few places that you can see the curvature of the Earth from the concorde.
——————–
Critical thinkers, we got here: Focal length. Cropping. Seemingly, the very fundamentals of photography, and simply, imagery (with lack of description), elude you.
Oh, and FET, or Flat Earth Theory, is written a lot in these parts. “Conjecture,” would be the more accurate term.
LeviJones ROFL
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=92096
I hate how people say the phrase, “Round Earth Theory” it is not a theory it is a fact that the earth is round. Flat Earth THEORY believers are ignorant and refuse to listen to reason. So basically Flat Earth THEORY people believe that all the world’s governments and science authorities lied to everyone for almost no reason, and that all the astronauts and everyone who works at NASA are lairs who are hell bent on spreading the idea that the Earth is round. Oh yeah and everyone who has ever piloted and airplane is in on the conspiracy too.
LivingSovereign’s comments were offensive and were deleted.
LivingSovereign if you want to speak your mind, you may, regardless of opinions, but if you spout hatered or racism, your comments will be deleted on sight.
I’m sure you’re capable of speaking without resorting to cheap racist slurs. And if not, go away.
LivingSovereign, your terrible spelling and racism speaks volumes about your level of intelligence.
michaelstvns6 You’re too naive to respond to
If the earth was flat there would been an ending point on the earth
sbusiso Says who?
The earth is not round, it’s spherical, if u say round u speak of a 2 dimensional object.
If the earth is spinning on its axis while orbiting around the sun, then you couldn’t have the polaris rotation. Since the polaris rotation is real you can’t have a spinning rotating earth. That’s one huge score for the flat earth model (geocentricity) team.
The earth we are told has a diameter of @8,000 miles or roughly 40 million feet. Times 3.14 for the earth circumference is @ 125 million feet. A line from either pole to the equator is thus one quarter of the circumference or @ 32 million feet. A line from either pole to the equator descends below the pole 4,000 miles or 20 million feet. Thus, for each foot from a pole to the equator there is a descent of roughly 2/3 of a foot. Thus, a mile and a half from the pole there is a descent of of @ 1 mile according to these calculations.
This is not what we see here on earth. In Los Angeles, for example Catalina Island is 26 miles off shore but is visible to the naked eye most days. According to the calculatons above we should not be able to see Catalina Island. Catalina should be miles below the horizon. How can this be unless the earth is not spherical?
This simple calculation must be explained in order for the spherical earth theory to remain viable.
nick100 Your calculation has an error. The earth’s surface curves at ~8 inches per mile. Also, the island isn’t flat, it’s sticking out of the ocean with its highest point at 2,096 feet.
Using correct calculations, you can see approximately 1,600 feet of Catalina island (from the horizon to the peak of Mount Orizaba) from 26 miles away – i.e., the mainland. If the island were to “drift” away, the peak would disappear behind the horizon at approximately 59 miles
So from the mainland you can easily see a portion of the island. Just do the research…
nazzer nick100
tangent 90 degrees to the radius gives vaying results when the length of
the tangent is increased. A tangent of 10, 100, or 1000 will bring a
curvature much greater than when using 1 mile tangent. Chord sagitta
works better.
2//3 of the curvature of a circle or circumference from a tangent accounts
for 1/2 the descent of the circumference along the radius from the
tangent. Thus, the final 1/3 of the circumference accounts for 1/2 of the
descent of circumference along the radius. This is a peculiar aspect of a
circle. Lots of peculiar aspects of the earth hiding in plain sight.
The earth is a sphere. Everyone knows that. The earth does have some
anomalies.
For example, The nile river is over 4,000 miles long and is the longest
river on earth. Strangely, it is one of the few rivers that flows south to
north uphill and it flows through a desert with very few feeder rivers.
The curvature of the earth seems to have no effect on the nile river.
My research shows your method of calculation does not work. The curvature
of an 8,000 mile diameter sphere is much greater than 8″ per mile.
nick100 nazzer Just think for moment… you said, “Thus, for each foot from a pole to the equator there is a descent of roughly 2/3 of a foot. Thus, a mile and a half from the pole there is a descent of of @ 1 mile according to these calculations.” That sounds like a steep hill to me. A person with average height can see about 3 miles to the horizon. And the Nile flows uphill??? No, the higher ground is in the south.
nick100 nazzer The curvature is 8″ per mile, it’s just that the calculation is parabolic. If you move that 1 mile, the earth will curve another 8″ for another mile FROM your new starting point. From your initial starting point though, the drop of course is greater than 8″; it is in fact 32″. Basic mathematical principles, does this make sense?
nazzer nick100
Maybe the issue is semantic. 8″ per mile is not enough to account for the traverse of the circumference along the radius or 4,000 miles.
Did you try your equation with the tangent at 100 miles or a 1000 miles? The longer the tangent the greater the difference above the earth. Inconsistent results. The traverse of a circumference along the radius starts slow and increases dramatically near the end of the radius. We know a traveler following the radius to a tangent will traverse 4,000 miles along the circumference relative to the radius. That’s a big drop and a lot of curve most dramatic near the end of the radius because of the nature of a circle. Your quote above needs to account for this unique aspect of a circle.
My question about the nile was in regards to the curvature of the earth and the impact the curvature should have on the nile. the height of the land does not compensate for the curvature of the earth.
Think of it in miniature. A 2 foot beach ball with a 1/16 inch raised secion from half way down the beach ball more less like the terrain the nile flows upon. What would happen if a 1/32 ” flow of water was put on that raised section? It would not move towards Cairo because the curvature of the beach ball would cause the water to flow downfill towards the source of the water.
nick100 nazzer You didn’t understand, that’s okay… . The curvature of the earth has no or little impact on the Nile, gravity affects the flow; hence, high ground to low ground. Earth has radial gravity (it is a planet after all), it’s not linear O.o what is this nonsense about a beach ball?
nazzer nick100
I tried. It is difficult for some to comprehend new ideas. Vaya bien.
It would
nazzer nick100
Take care.
nick100 nazzer You just have to think of the 8″/mile thing as parabolic in nature. If you don’t move: after one mile, each consecutive mile is going to cause a greater increase in “drop” relative to your initial starting position. However, If you move, the tangent also moves; the angle changes.
You take care too.
nazzer nick100 Idiots. The distance in miles is squared then multiplied by eight inches.. i.e. at five miles straight from your eyeline is 5x5x8″
Get your math correct before you try to defend some spinning ball…which does not exist and all evidence is not in favor of a ball.
damn you both just blow my mind..I need basic formulas to prove to some flat earthers on my page but shit..lol. you both are like computers..my guess is androids from the demetions below this flat earth.lol j/k. most these flat earth society people believe the elite are tricking us with the moon, sun and stars so they throw out any ofvthe shadow stuff or looking at the earth thru space because it’s an illusion from the elite.(lol) also why the airline routes travel the way they do and waste jet fuel. I know there are polar routes but my guess was atmospheric pressure is different at the poles which would burn fuel at different rates due to the pressure and flying at different altitudes as well. I found out the extreme temperatures play a factor in fuel and freeze rate also to warm the cabin probably is a factor too. they also claim gravity is a lie.wth,wth,wth!!!. I sure appreciate any replies from either of you whiz kids;)
nazzer nick100 To calculate the “drop” of the earth use this formula:
8″ x the square of the distance from the viewer in miles
For example: at 2 miles away the drop is 8″ x 2 x 2=32″
For Catalina Island at 26 miles away:
8″ x26x26=5408 inches or 450′ drop
nazzer nick100 Nazzer, you are wrong it is not 8 inches per mile. DO not refer to google or wickepedia for your information. Your calculation is a common error. The correct calculation is distance squared (distance x distance) x 7.934 (most people use 8 – the inch drop) divided by 12 = the total drop in inches over that distance. So over 26 miles to Catalina Island, there would have to be an observable drop of 37.5 ft and all good pictures show NO DROP AT ALL. The vista is flat. The ball is in your court . Do not parrot she said, he said, they said, do your own research, you will be dumbfounded.
nazzer nick100 sorry los angeles to catalina not new york
nick100 hear hear! Until that is explained, every other argument is adjusting deckchairs on the Titanic
@Rikard Nilsson no, it just means one of your legs is longer than the other and you’ve just walked in a circle.
@Harutsedo If the earth is constantly accelerating upwards, it shouldn’t be long before we’re all in heaven.
JimmyVermeer According to the Vedic cosmology, the earth plane does not move upwards at all. There is no gravity force as we know it but there is the law of attraction, the force that attracts a part to its source (the whole), so whatever is made of earth will be attracted back to earth but fire will always go upwards as it belongs to the sun. The Vedic cosmology also explains that earth is an spherical island on a bigger salty ocean where there are 8 more islands fully inhabited by humans. This universe is like a bubble and there are countless bubbles like that one. In the middle of the “bubble” there is the plain of death where our “island” resides with all other islands. Below there are demoniac planes and above there are subtle celestial planes but God’s abode is beyond the material universe.
gopika you don’t really believe that, do you? The Mars Rovers were built on Earth, yet they sit on Mars. Why don’t they fly back to Earth? And if fire belongs to the sun, why is it possible to start a fire at night time? Also, there is no evidence that humans inhabit other planets.
My favorite argument from the flat-Earthers is the two airplanes, flying between NY & LA at 500 mph. IF the Earth is spinning at 1000 mph, then, in fact, one plane is moving at 1500 mph, while the other, also flying at 500 mph in the opposite direction, must be moving backwards at 500 mph! Since this is not the case, the Earth must NOT be spinning. And besides, you would FEEL the motion of the Earth as it rotated on its axis,, revolved around the Sun, around the galaxy, and around the universe. They actually believe this! They claim there was NO Moon Landing, NO trips to space at all, no Shuttle, NO satellites, and NO gravity. Then, they take an “Artist’s rendition” from any number of NASA space missions, and question who took the picture? Proving NASA is lying, and we cannot possibly get to space. It goes on and on and on, and is extremely frustrating! ALL photos showing the curved horizon are through curved windows, or curved Go-Pro lenses. Oh, and the Bible references the “Ends of the Earth”, or “The four corners of the Earth”, proving we are on a flat plane, not a sphere. I cannot fathom how anybody would buy into the theory. I think some of these videos, papers, etc, are merely a challenge to produce a working argument, or perhaps a lesson for debate class…
TomPayton How do you explain that gravity hold everything to the earth, including the oceans, but magically has no effect on an aircraft that is flying. A helicopter that hovers stays stationary because of gravity, but if the helicopter is flying with the rotation of the earth gravity has no effect ‘pushing it along’ and a helicopter flying against the rotation isn’t hindered by gravity.
‘THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS’ is not a logical debunking. We know what we actually believe.
I know it’s hard for you to believe that the gov’t lies, because they never lie about anything else. And, it is NASA which relies on ‘Artist rendtions’. Truth seekers can never get away with the things people like you allow your idols to get away with. There are numerous real world examples people seeing objects well beyond what a curve would allow. Why don’t you ask NASA for a photograph of the earth from Hubble? All they have are computer generated images, so don’t hold you’re breath. They say simple photograph isn’t possible. Do you believe that?
You’ve obviously done SOME reading on the subject. I suggest you try understanding what you are reading before you comment. It also would be prudent to start trusting normal people who are just trying to find the truth of things, and stop worshipping your false idols who have a LONG, LONG, LONG, VERY LONG HISTORY OF LYING ABOUT EVERYTHING.
coz3001 TomPayton gravity holds stuff down unless it uses force to move up you outdid
TomPayton I cannot fathom how anybody would buy into the fake moon landings and space “missions” (cover-up operations) after actually looking at all of the evidence. You think you can get into space just because you saw some pictures of government agents doing it while they spread their little globes everywhere for years… ridiculous.
maulotaur TomPayton If you would like to find out for yourself if it’s flat or round, book a private jet and head straight for Antarctica. You will either A. Be shot down or B. Discover a whole new uncharted land like Admiral Bird. Now seriously, which one do you think will come first? Remember there is a thing called the Antarctic Treaty. Ask yourself, why?
TomPayton I’ve watched a few of these flat earth videos. They are painful to watch. In the last one I watched there was some guy trying to argue against the Earth being a sphere because of the rotational direction of a storm just off the coast of China, which he states as being in the Southern hemisphere. You can’t argue with stupid like that.
slymonster TomPayton Thanks, I’m glad somebody besides me believes this “big lie”. lol. I don’t know why I allow myself to get sucked in to such a ridiculous debate! I honestly thought there might be a better argument that I just wasn’t seeing.
slymonster TomPayton Actually, there is no argument.
You ignore the fact that things are commonly seen well beyond what would be possible on a earth with a curvature that can be simply calculated (miles squared times 8 inches) easily calculates how far below the observation point any object should be. Funny how you never mention that, and that calculation works no matter how HIGH you are.
NASA has NEVER taken a photograph of the earth, only composite images, also known as CGI so out goes point number 10. Flat earth models assume a stationary plain and gravity does not exist, your own gravity model would have a person weighing less the further they get from the center of gravity which doesn’t happen there goest point number 9. You assume man landed on the moon, but that ignores the numerous other examples of NASA fraud having to do with bubbles in space which clearly prove their actually in a giant pool.
Its an easily provable fact that objects can be seen and photographed from distances that would be impossible if the earth were round.
It is also a fact that NASA has never taken a non-computer generated image of the earth, just ask ’em. They say it’s not possible. Aren’t you even curious why they’ve NEVER turned about the Hubble Telescope and took a simple photograph of earth? If you’re not then you’re a shill, and no wonder you lie.
coz3001 The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.
@Rikard Nilsson Okay. You do that.
Forget the drawings. Forget the NASA CGI’s. Forget pretending your a scientist or math wiz. Forget long distance pictures of ships on the ocean. AND, just go photograph a CURVE.
2 people, each 6 feet tall, only 3 miles away from each other should not be able to see each other. Because the curvature would place each 72 inches below the other, and their eyes would be only about 68 inches off the ground. Use a telescope, binoculars, or a laser pointer, it doesn’t matter, the curvature will completely block the line of sight, right? Prove it.
Except you can’t because there is no curve.
Try to photograph the curve, in simple easy to do experiment. It can’t be done.
coz3001 6 miles not 3. d=2*sqrt(2*R*h+h^2)
coz3001 If it is that easy, why is there no photographic evidence that the Earth is a flat disc?
Rule 101 of Photography, in order to take a picture of something very large you need to get a long way from it. The hubble telescope (for example) is in low Earth orbit, which really isn’t very far away on the scale of things.
Fortunately for the millions of people whose jobs rely on the Earth being a spinning globe the assumptions and science that flat earthers use is laughably poor.
slymonster coz3001 Look up the Old Bedford Canal experiment in Cambridge, England. Pretty much disproves the globe. The reason there’s no picture proof of a flat disc is because like you stated, you have to be very far away. Since NASA has never been higher than low Earth orbit, the globe pics have been faked. According to Neil Tyson DiGrassi, the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Pretty much tells you that either he or NASA is lying. All NASA’s pics of the Earth are round.
Reelin68 slymonster coz3001
Okay, it’s not a perfect sphere. But how do you describe it to kids? In physics it is sometimes necessary to simplify things so that it is easier to teach. This is no way disproves the globe theory. The oblate spheroid that you speak of is very nearly a sphere. If you would describe a gold ball, baseball or tennis ball as a sphere then you are making the exact same ‘simplification’ that scientists and teachers make when describing the Earth as a globe or a sphere.
I have looked up the Old Bedford Canal experiment. All recent efforts to reproduce the results that ‘proved’ the Earth to be flat have in actuality supported the globe theory.
Cherry picking results proves nothing.
coz3001 Your right on the money with the curveture.
coz3001
You realize that the earth is uneven right? Like, it has hills, and even you must know this. You can watch someone disappear over the horizon only a hundred feet away if you’ve got a hill there. And if they are in a valley? You go the other way.
That’s why these equations are approximations, which work well for large distances and break down to local influences over small ones. You’re following me, right?
Here’s a video showing a curvature (over 90.8 miles) of about 5,500 feet. This would simply NOT happen on a flat earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bjH-n7PKw
I don’t have time at the moment for a long retort, but I do have a question. What is the reason that scientists, astronomers, governments, NASA, and so many other groups or persons have lied about the Earth being a sphere? Why are they keeping the truth of a flat Earth from the masses? By the way, I do NOT trust or believe everything from NASA, they continually lie about a lot of things, there is no doubt. I do however, believe we went to the Moon. I mean, I have been less than honest before, that doesn’t mean that absolutely everything that comes out of my mouth is a lie.
TomPayton there’s a few theories as the the “why” ; the ones that are most feasible to me is either ‘knowledge” or “land” – knowledge about humanity, our history — anything like. The other argument is land; the idea that they allow us to only learn and observe what they want us to; image if there were more land or resources beyond the earth globe they show us?
TomPayton hello tom, for a great start to the lie of the global shaped earth send me your email to ransomovitch1960@gmail.com and I’ll send you a free ebook that explains so much ransomovitch
TomPayton You just answered your own question Tom.
TomPayton I wrote a comment to you above, that explains my theory.. but in short, I honestly believe without a shadow of a doubt that ‘The Illuminati’ still exists within the upper degrees of ‘Freemasonry’ and have done everything in their power to hide God, and turn people away from Christianity.. even if you don’t believe in Christianity, just imagine for a minute that it’s right.. and throughout history it’s recorded that the Bavarian Illuminati had a very tumultuous relationship with Christianity. So let’s say the Illuminati wanted to destroy Christianity, How could you turn an entire world of people away from that?.. one way, you could develop scientific theories that disprove everything in the Bible, and push them as mainstream knowledge (Evolution, Round Earth).. make everybody believe that God must not be true because we’ve spent our lives learning that the Bible is scientifically false.. Since rediscovering my faith, people have asked me, what proof have you personally seen that God exists? My answer is more proof than I’ve ever seen that Evolution is real.. and come to think of it, I’ve never been to space and looked back to see that the Earth is a Sphere
ChrisToulan TomPayton hear hear
ChrisToulan TomPayton You may want to believe that the ‘globers’ are trying to disprove the bible. But in actual fact, the bible does NOT teach that the Earth is flat. The idea that it does is an urban myth. If you studied the bible properly you would know this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
The above link may go some way to helping explain.
Ask the liars why they lie. NASA’s origins are NAZI so that’s enough to question everything about that great American institution. Compartmentalization, big salaries, threat of 20 year prison terms, there are all kinds of reason that people at the top lie or go along with a lie. And yes, if you’ve been caught lying enough times, then a logical assumption for an honest person to make is that you’re lying all the time.
Photograph the curve, and post the photo.
Ever hear of the Salt Flats in Utah? You can see from one end to the other and that 12 miles, each end should be 1152 miles below the other, but it’s not, it’s flat, no curvature whatsoever.
Forget trusting some agency and look for yourself. It’s an incredible thought, but if you can find a curve then it’s just not round. The curve should be obvious everywhere you look if it’s there, and based on the numbers they’ve given us it can be calculated. Where is it? The only place there is a curve is in computer generated images provided to us by a gov’t agency founded by Nazi’s.
But, the flat earth is right out your window and easily seen so. Not to mention thousands of photographs online of things taken from impossible distances if the earth had a curve.
This is one of those moment when a person must choose to either accept the evidence before their eyes, or continue to be comforted by the lie the gov’t that raised you has told you.
99.9% are not strong enough to face the truth and take the Blue pill and live a life of delusion. I feel no comfort in being part of the willfully and blissfully ignorant majority.
Ask the liars why they lie. NASA’s origins are NAZI so that’s enough
to question everything about that great American institution.
Compartmentalization, big salaries, threat of 20 year prison terms,
there are all kinds of reason that people at the top lie or go along
with a lie. And yes, if you’ve been caught lying enough times, then a
logical assumption for an honest person to make is that you’re lying all
the time.
Photograph the curve, and post the photo.
Ever
hear of the Salt Flats in Utah? You can see from one end to the other
and that 12 miles, each end should be 1152 miles below the other, but
it’s not, it’s flat, no curvature whatsoever.
Forget
trusting some agency and look for yourself. It’s an incredible thought,
but if you can find a curve then it’s just not round. The curve should
be obvious everywhere you look if it’s there, and based on the numbers
they’ve given us it can be calculated. Where is it? The only place
there is a curve is in computer generated images provided to us by a
gov’t agency founded by Nazi’s.
But, the flat earth is
right out your window and easily seen so. Not to mention thousands of
photographs online of things taken from impossible distances if the
earth had a curve.
This is one of those moment when a
person must choose to either accept the evidence before their eyes, or
continue to be comforted by the lie the gov’t that raised you has told
you.
99.9% are not strong enough to face the truth
and take the Blue pill and live a life of delusion. I feel no comfort
in being part of the willfully and blissfully ignorant majority.
coz3001 Have you ever been on an airplane or climbed a small mountain (doesn’t even have to be that high, just a few hundred feet)? The proof is in the pudding. The Earth is indeed a sphere. You can see the massive curve on the horizon. Sure, there may be places on earth that are flatter than others, but our Earth is A LOT bigger than 12 miles, and it all adds up to one big spherical shape. Have you ever taken science classes or read a science book? Physics? Anything? I mean, all the indisputable proof above and you still believe the Earth is flat?! I once took a picture from the top of Mount McKay in Thunder Bay Ontario. It shows the curve. I will try to find it and post it.
No sorry. Youre hallucinating. My boyfriend has pictures hundreds of feet in the air. He used to climb and fix cellnphone towers. No curve. Even without the pics its obvious. There is no curvature. And this person who wrote this crap is just regurgitating NAZI NASA bull. I lived in miami florida and moved up north… The ships dont come from a curve. You can actually see a ship full on from about 30 miles away with binoculars. They just get smaller. You look at the horizon on a setting sun and take out binoculars and it wont look like its setting. And the stick experiment. Really??? Lmfao just look an ancient sundials that are still accurate, the north pole is fixed, and the constellations never get mixed up.
If we are trut hurling through space around the sun, and the sun around the galaxy at billions of mph then there would be change. And so sorry but you cant deny the laws of gravity and centrifugal force to fit your argument. You cannot explain the gravitron ride on a spinning earth. The atmosphere does not spin with the earth at 1500mph. This is ridiculous.
vanessazephyr I just want to know WHY the big lie? WHY are we being told the Earth is round, everything is moving, spinning and revolving, gravity, and all the rest. I understand the reasons WHY NASA would lie about the Moon Landings, but cannot understand WHY they and many scientists and scholars through out history would engage in such a super-lie.
That’s actually easier to explain. There ar endless reasons. They want us to be powerless. We manifest our reality and they want to suppress us of that. These scholars and rocket scientists are nazis. Thats it. There is no more or less “experts”. They are all regurgitating the same thing. Its half truths thats poisoning this world. They had to lie about the moon landings. And when they found out about the dome supposedly they sent a crapload of nukes into the sky. They opened a “window” to heaven and apparently the rift is a crack in it. Im on the fence with a lot of this. Im still processing everythig to find out whats really going on. I believe they are planningn some kind of invasion type thing and making it look like “aliens”. Its problem reaction solution to the new world order. Now there are a lot more reasons and you have to know the human power to truly understand. Theyve been suppressing us for too long with religion and diseases and we constantly give away our power. Maybe this is a machine and we are the gears. We are biolgical robots in a way but cannot be controlled unless we give them permission. We all fund our own deaths. I believe in other dimensions and think that we are literally in some sort of machine… Think about it, the “invaders” were here first and created this system after destroying whatever other life was here before. Maybe the native teachings are literal? Now if you create a world type system, wouldnt it be plausible that everything would be made to their liking? Fbi protocol, private banksters, mortgages and stock markets etc. It all favors them. So for them to create nasa out of thin air and higher guppies who are trained to be compartmentalized then its safe to assume a lot of them dont know what theyre doing…
vanessazephyr hello vannessa well done, ypuve started a journey that will have you realise we are created by an amazing God
TomPayton vanessazephyr dont forget – not “EVERYTHING” is moving or spinning; the moon actually doesn’t spin at all.
Wow im not an idiot….
sprvlln TomPayton vanessazephyr Yes it does. The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.
TomPayton sprvlln vanessazephyr if teh moon spins tom why has the whole world only ever seen one face of the moon?
sprvlln TomPayton vanessazephyr That’s right…it’s nothing but a mixture of dense gas…and it’s often transclucent if you watch close enough during the first or last phase phase of the lunar cycle. You do need a good telescope or large set of binoculars.
TomPayton vanessazephyr if youd like me to answer that Tom, please email me ransomovitch1960@gmail.com
TomPayton vanessazephyr Because if you have no clue what the truth is, you have no idea what you are doing. It’s mind control. Have we EVER seen pictures of a fully mapped antarctica on google earth? hmmmm, nope. Why? Because the government’s of the world and NATO, UN and the like don’t want you to know what is there. The Antarctic circle is indeed a circular body of ice that is about 100 miles wide according to older maps. Let’s see some aerial photos of the Antarctic…oh, there are none. Are you kidding me??? That makes zero sense. Just about as much sense as to why there are only 2 photos of the earth taken from space and they are both over 40 years old and taken on the alleged Apollo missions.
Houston, we have a problem. And btw way, there are way more lies you don’t even know about yet. The entire world of commerce is fiction as well and the “currency” used by the banks as money is nothing mre than fancy Monopoly money. You are living in a matrix and simply can’t see beyond what your mind has perceived as true. We atre literally surrounded by lies and the bottom line is that it keeps you enslaved. The easiest way to enslave a population is to make them “believe” they are free.
DouglasofAvalon TomPayton vanessazephyr Oh I have a clue. I agree with your Monopoly money idea, and fully agree with “The easiest way to enslave a population is to make them “believe” they are free.”. I know there are MANY lies we ALL are being told. I am still researching some of this other stuff; but you can’t blame me for being skeptical of a Flat Earth. Most of these Flat Earther’s wanna get all upset and start name calling and belittling, which totally takes away from even wanting to research. Keep the posts coming!
TomPayton DouglasofAvalon vanessazephyr Thanks Tom, here is a paper I wrote that may interest you then:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/271354344/Everything-in-Commerce-is-Fiction-6-2015
TomPayton I’m still skeptical as well.. but doing some research into the Masons/Illuminati, things do add up in a very different manor.. I don’t know how you identify Religiously/Spiritually.. but after growing up Catholic, I spent most of my life Atheist and have recently been rediscovering my faith in Christianity.. One reason is it seems like the “Book of Revelation” is currently coming true, the other is the information I have recently read about these two interwoven secret societies.. Much of what is available about the Free Masons and Illuminati in modern time seems to relate to members that are Global Bankers and Political Figures, along with some older Public Figures in Media.Entertainment.. But researching the history of these groups and I discover that the original members of the Masons/Illuminati were also many early Scientists, like Galileo, even Darwin had connections.. Many other people that formed the foundation of EVERYTHING our current science is based on.. These men were quoted as being interested in “being enlightened/illuminated”.. The other interesting thing about the Illuminati/Masons is that they (at least symbolically) have had this unbelievable infatuation with representations of Apollo who in Greek/Roman mythology; along with being the God of music, was also the “bringer of light”.. just like RA the Sun God in Egyptian Mythology (represented by the pyramid and all seeing illuminated eye that you always see).. also much like Lucifer, the “Angel of music and bringer of light”, who was a fallen Angel in Christianity, who was also known as our Biblical Satan/The Devil.. The fact that the Illuminati/Masons had (at least symbolically) this infatuation with “Lucifer” and also had a tumultuous relationship with Christianity.. leaves the door open for me to look into these preconceived foundation for which our science is based on and wonder if The Illuminati really has survived this long.. and if from the shadows, they really have been influencing been influencing everything from our Government, to our Entertainment, to the science we’ve spent our lives learning, in their battle against Christianity.. As strange as it sounds, from what I’ve researched about “the Illuminati”, they seem like and equal and exact opposite to Christianity.. from their beliefs, to the symbols they choose to represent them.. I’m not saying that they worship Satan, but it seems that they have paid him some serious tribute throughout history
Because they are hiding God.
vanessazephyr The earth rotates at 0.0007rpm… Centrifugal force at such slow speed is negligible.
I know the earth is an approximate sphere rotating at this speed from my own observations.. Not because scientists told me so.
JoeBlythe coz3001 which drugs you took ? 🙂
there is no curve 😀
JoeBlythe coz3001 The ONLY way a photo of the horizon will “exhibit” a curve is by using a fisheye lens. There is NO curvature visible even from over 70 miles up and an amateur rocketeer set a world record proving that as fact. You globers are gonna lose this one hands down. Science books are literally full of bullshit which is why you want to think you know the earth is a globe. It’s nice to think of it that way but your “sphere” of influence diminished rapidly when you mentioned something about science classes….
coz3001 If the earth is flat than how did freanad magenline go to ashia
owenredeyedsquid coz3001 he transported.
Notice how they start with false assumptions like saying that people have known it is round for thousands of years (lies), setting up the rest of the deception.
maulotaur Actually, they have know for thousands of years. The book of Isaiah, written 700 years before Christ, talks about the circle of the earth.
Circle…. Not egg shape.
Circle is NOT a sphere.
maulotaur people have always know the earth is round. A spinning sphere travelling through
outer space around the sun is something totally different and asking Nasa to prove the impossible is moronic. They have already so many
the only thing i would like to say about the flat earth, is i never seen a video of the earth rotating with independent cloud movement. i guess NASA feel that storm never move they just stay with the land mass.
atedude That is because you have never seen a video of the earth rotating – doesn’t exit.
(2) That’s a great idea with the ships and the horizon. School kids can watch ships disappear into the horizon in front of the superior mirage that is the Chicago Skyline. CHEERS
I would totally be sold if they could create an earth model in a closed environment where water is held on a sphere.
sprvlln that is something people who believe in the sphere model don’t take ino account. The amount of water the spinning sphere is holding.
Ive said all i need to. You are obviously an insider. If not go resesrch and question like all of us are doing. Instead of patronizing and twistingg semantics even further.
I dont give a crap what u believe
No round earther has answered the question about the strange routes planes take in the southern hemisphere on planefinder, totally going out of their way but on a flat earth model the rotes they take are direct and make sense. They can not answer why planes disappear or reappear in this area too, like they are hiding their tracks.
jacqueszupp They can’t answer a lot of things, not just planes. The information claimed is based on false assumptions, fake pictures and myths that do not correspond with real-world test results while ignoring many other possible explanations. The whole bottom half of the article about space is no way for anyone to know anything – pictures and claims issued by a government operation…
jacqueszupp Planes disappear and reappear in that area because of a lack of radar which are used to track planes. Many planes tend to take indirect routes over oceans to stay close to land in case there is an issue with the plane.
There you go. Answered.
slymonster jacqueszupp xDDDDDDDDDDDDDD srsly you are dumb
just dumb
lack of radar :D:D:D:D:D:D:D wtf are you dreaming about ? 😀 omfg
DavidKo1 slymonster jacqueszupp Where the hell do you think they are going to put the radar dishes where there is no land? You do understand how radar works right? I mean seriously?
I find your insult to be more ridiculous than your lack of scientific knowledge.
Yay you dumb flat earth socity
Every one who thinks the earth is flat soon some company will let you go to space in a weather balloon. If you go on it you will have proof the earth is round.
#4 is one of the dumbest things i ever heard and back to this i think all the statistics and facts are just fucking ridicoulus and not well researched. it just made me laugh that a person thinks shadows must be euqal only cause earth is flat, it relates on the light source and where it is. just a dumb fact like this article. SHOW ME 1 HORIZON , I DONT CARE HOW HIGH IN SPACE OR DEEP IN EARTH OR WHERE EVER YOU ARE , THAT IS CURVED. SHOW IT TO ME PLEASE….
and please dont show me any NASA or GOVERMENT pictures. failers
DavidKo1
You know SpaceX is a private company, right? Watch one of their launch videos if you don’t trust “teh government”
Also, weather balloons get pretty high too. The attached picture is one taken from the Iowa high altitude balloon project.
http://www.ihabproject.com
Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1 and this dethrones flat earth theory how exactly?
ransomovitch DavidKo1
He asked for a picture of a curved horizon, so I sent him one.
At any one 24 hr period over earth, there are approximately 100,000 planes flying across the ‘globe’ (haha) leaving their condensation trails as they pass by, and so Mr dwarfdeaths, you tell us all what’s missing from this little cgi and all other earth pics please. Whoops, but Im sure you’ll have an answer.
ransomovitch
By CGI I’m assuming you’re talking about the images of earth from space. As for what’s missing, I’m assuming you’re talking about the contrails.
Short answer: contrails are visible from space, but are not particularly easy to see unless you use the right imaging techniques. After being made, contrails quickly diffuse and look very much like regular clouds (they are clouds, after all) and become almost indistinguishable.
The picture above, specifically, was taken from a (relatively) very low altitude (balloon) above rural Iowa with a small area visible that isn’t obstructed by regular clouds.
See the attached picture for an idea of how difficult it is to distinguish contrails from other clouds by eye.
Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1 hahahaha, what a joke.
DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
This image is not from NASA at all. I find it so odd that most of the flat-earthers think NASA has some sort of monopoly on space access. Granted, they are one of the largest and best funded – hence how they have so much data – and they were also one of the pioneers in space travel, but there are lots of countries (and now corporations) with access to space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies
Dwarfdeaths DouglasofAvalon DavidKo1 wiki is just that and btw, NASA = Natiponal Acadmy of Space Actors. Globularheaders have nothing to stand on as all science is bs and now everyone (except you of course) knows this. No offense, there is no argument anymore.
DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
If you want to convince people that “all science is BS,” you will have to provide evidence.
Oh wait, evidence is how science works.
BTW, how in the world do you think cell phones work? They are based on electromagnetism, and are just one of an innumerable number of technologies based on science.
Dwarfdeaths DouglasofAvalon DavidKo1 Science IS bullshit…so what you are saying then is to prove something is bullshit with more bullshit. That’s bullshit….and this whole thing is bullshit. Stupid. Senseless. Mindless. It does not matter, everyone already KNOWS the entire world is bullshit. I am a living man. I can’t live in the realm of bullshit you live in. Science IS bullshit…and yse, I repeated that because it truly is. You see, nothing matters…no thing.
DouglasofAvalon Dwarfdeaths DavidKo1
Wait, so let me get this straight – for the record.
You think using evidence to support your positions is bullshit?
Okay, be my guest, but no way in hell you’re convincing me without evidence.
Dwarfdeaths DouglasofAvalon DavidKo1
It confuses me why someone, such as DouglasofAvalon, would remotely think that all science is bullshit while using a method of communication that relies so heavily on so much proven science.
slymonster Sly, an analogy is in order. You are a professional bowler, for argument sake. You have been challenged by Douglas to a match. Douglas is an amateur, but he says he is going to beat you — crush you. You accept the match and you bowl a respectable 249. Your opponent never picks up a bowling ball. Instead he carries a badminton shuttlecock around the bowling alley placing it on the heads of nearby persons giving him self 10 points each time. He score an amazing 1,360. He wins — at least in the world between his ears. You attempt to argue that he was not bowling. He, of course, asks you to prove that he is not bowling. He’s brought along some friends who say that indeed, what he is doing is bowling.
This guy is right out of the Monty Python argument clinic sketch. He just contradicts, never provides a true argument. Why are any of you wasting your time? If this guy walked into a lecture on discussing gaussian distribution at nearby MIT and babbled on like this he would be removed, or would leave on his own after being ridiculed. Why are his posts not deleted? It does science a disservice to have a comment section next to a thoughtful article allowing folks to think there is another side to the argument. There is no argument. There is no other side.
slymonster I imagine at one point he has relied upon medical science to continue his well-being. MRIs and catscan machine grow on trees. We don’t know how they work, they just do.
DavidKo1 There is no way to prove the Earth is not flat to you. I am making a presumption that you are illiterate in mathematics and scientific methods in general. Simply contradicting the facts is fine. You are free to believe whatever you like. However, if you want to convince others of what you believe, you are clearly do not have the tools.
Now, I want everyone to know that you have a large plate of uneaten spaghetti on your ping pong table. Prove me wrong — and don’t try to show me CGI pictures of your ping pong table with the uneaten plate of spaghetti removed. I am not going to fall for that.
same like #5…. wtf is if i look at a flat table at its “level” i can see just a little part of the table if i go up it will expand. SRSLY 😀 who wrote this shit 😀
DavidKo1
It’s saying you can literally see things when you go up that you couldn’t see from the ground. they even drew pictures.
A disc shaped earth would not be plausible with what we know about gravity.
Ok if the earth is flat
1. How come we see sunrises and sunsets?
2. We have so much technology why nobody from the flat earth society didn’t take a plane or a boat to show us the end of the flat earth
3. How come you can see satellites orbiting the earth
4. What keeps your flat earth together
5. Why is hotter at Equator than Tropics
6. How do you explain the seasons
7. If the earth is flat and more than 70 % is water when you have a tsunami we should tip over?
Not flat not round somewhere between the two
Who can believe anything put out by the government controlled nasa program that’s like a black hole of money when I / the moon landings has been proven fake 2/ you can see bubbles on most of their space walks 3/ they have never shown us a real picture of earth from space never it’s always the same cgi bull everytime and I can keep going but you get my point
Jason Clark
NASA doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge pertaining to the shape of the earth. They’re just well-known for being one of the first two entities for successfully reach space and conducting a huge amount of research about our planet.
If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
This is how science works – the model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites, among a myriad of other things.
If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.
Jason Clark
1/ The moon landings have never been proven fake. It’s just the same regurgitated ‘bad science’ spouted by the same old conspiracy idiots.
2/ Please point me in the direction of some of these videos. Official ones, not ones that could have been edited afterwards.
3/ We do have real pictures of the Earth from space. Yes, they use the same old pictures because we just haven’t been that far from Earth since the Apollo missions to be able to get new pictures. You get how big the Earth is and how relatively close even the furthest satellites are right. Photography 101. If you want to take a photo of something very large, you have to back away a long way.
Granted, it’s a lot to take in. To even accept the possibility that they’ve been lying to us our whole lives is daunting. But to just regurgitate what NASA has taught is is relying on what the world says. Remember, were not supposed to be of the world.
Missemy
NASA doesn’t have a monopoly on all knowledge pertaining to the shape of the earth. They’re just well-known for being one of the first two entities for successfully reach space and conducting a huge amount of research about our planet.
To re-paste my first post:
If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
This is how science works – the model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites, among a myriad of other things.
If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.
Missemy What NASA has taught us? We have known the Earth is a globe orbiting the sun for thousands of years. This belief that we once thought the Earth was flat is founded in urban myth and the writings of a few ill informed people.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
A lot of this is in contention in recent years… things we’ve just accepted and not gone out to test for ourselves. And I really can’t trust anything nasa gives us these days. They’ve proven to be habitual and chronic liars. And there’s too much for them to lose if it was proven the earth is flat. All of your points have a counter-argument and you assume that only your globe earth model can account for phenomenon such as time zones and different shadows.
It’s a lot to take in… it’s initially impossible to think of another way the world could work.. it’s been beaten into us so hard.. I came here hoping to finally see something that would disprove the flat earth, but you have disappointed me with your lack of research and your lackadaisical attitude. You, sir, have wasted everyone’s time with information questioners have seen a thousand times over before even wondering. Before you assume that we’re only questioning because we’re ignorant buffoons, take the time to do some research you self-absorbed douche bag.
sandstroma
“They’ve proven to be habitual and chronic liars.”
Citation please.
I will copy and paste directly from my first post in response to yours:
If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
This is how science works – the model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites.
If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.
If you havent been given enough clues from reading these posts to begin your OWN journey, then you are merely a postulating time waster. The fact the spherical maths doesn’t stack up in front of our own eyes, the fact the only reliable source for imaging of a round earth is occult-rooted nasa with a history of easily-proven image fakery, the raft you are demanding in such a lofty, holier than thou – ‘oh you stupid fat-earthers’ – type attitude, these are all pointers to you being nowt more than an ill-informed, orthodox-enmeshed armchair critic. Anybody who bows to your wishes and supplies you with references instead of encouraging you out if your slothful, open-beaked, demanding stance in these matters is doing themselves and you a grand disservice. But here are just two clues to start with, do the curvature trig, visit your nearest vast expanse of water orf open flat plain (there is no difference) take out a telescope and see what greets your eye. Secondly, once more I ask you, do you believe NASA when they say they accidentally taped over the ‘greatest achievement of mankind’?
If you havent been given enough clues from reading these posts to begin your OWN journey, then you are merely a postulating time waster. The fact the spherical maths doesn’t stack up in front of our own eyes, the fact the only reliable source for imaging of a round earth is occult-rooted nasa with a history of easily-proven image fakery, the fact you are demanding in such a lofty, holier than thou – ‘oh you stupid fat-earthers’ – type attitude, these are all pointers to you being nowt more than an ill-informed, orthodox-enmeshed armchair critic. Anybody who bows to your wishes and supplies you with references instead of encouraging you out of your slothful, open-beaked, demanding stance in these matters is doing themselves and you a grand disservice. But here are just two clues to start with, do the curvature trig (distance in miles x distance in miles x 8 divided by 12 = feet drop ) visit your nearest vast expanse of still flat water or open flat plain (there is no difference) take out a telescope focus on whatever far off object (apparently over the horizon to the naked eye) and see what greets you in your eye piece. Secondly, once more I ask you, do you believe NASA when they say they accidentally taped over the ‘greatest achievement of mankind’? If you say yes I’m sorry but you are a gullible fool. If you say no, your journey has begun.
ransomovitch
You ironically respond to my post asking for evidence by making more assertions without providing evidence. I will ignore all of the insults – they are the time-wasters.
I like that you did propose an experiment, and then proceed to not say anything about the results. “See what greets your eye.” Okay.
90.8×90.8×8/12 = ~5500 ft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bjH-n7PKw
The mountain is ~4800′ higher than where the camera is, and the “level” plane is slightly above the mountain, so I’d say that just about nails it.
Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1CJZx4llto
Finally, NASA:
The answer to your question has nothing to do with whether the earth is round. I also like the options you give me:
“If you agree with me, you’re on your way, but if you disagree with me you’re a gullible fool.”
Honestly, it would be easier to land on the moon than to keep a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people for half a century under wraps. And, perhaps the more salient point: NASA is not (remotely) the only space agency to go conduct space missions. There are over 50 space agencies, and we (the world) have launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. That’s a conspiracy on the scale of the Truman show. So which is more likely, do you think? That we have been to space, using the technology that we have had for decades, or that you are on the Truman show?
Point1 Mr youtube regurgitator. Take your own telescope to your own chosen flat spot and from ground level, take out your scope, put it to your eye (you know, that amazing visual organ attached to your BRAIN) and look at something 20 miles away ….. And gues what? Whilst standing at approximately ground level, you will not see the curvature or drop which should, at 20 miles equate to an approximate 22 feet . And secondly,now do me a favour, I’ve answered one of your questions, now you answer me one of mine. If you don’t answer, I shall not bother replying to any more of your posts. Do you believe NASA when they say they have mislaid or taped over the most historic space mission in the history of mankind? YES? OR NO? Simple reply please
ransomovitch
1) I have, Mr. assumptionator. What I’ve not done is make a nice recording of it, and seeing as I’m pretty busy most of the time, I use links to videos of people who’ve done the extra work.
2) My answer: yes, I believe they taped over their recordings. Now answer my question: are you on the Truman show?
Attention all readers, in Mr dwarfdeaths previous answer, it is evident he can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into this most important topic and secondly, he believes nasa accidentally taped over the original moon landings. I am not usually given to mean spiritedness but Mr dwarfdeaths has brought out the angry in me. For me, he represents the typical armchair critic who does nil research of his own, believes all he is shown and told by the God in the corner (tv) and if he does pick pick a slight whiff of double dealings will steadfastly refuse to allow his brain to take him where he philosophically and spiritually does dare to go. For these reasons Mr dwarfdeaths, you get the reality you desrve.
ransomovitch
I deeply apologize for not having recorded my personal experiments in advance with the knowledge that you would accuse me of not having done them. Interestingly, you didn’t respond to the video that I sent you, nor did you answer my question regarding whether you believe that all 50 space agencies, all footage and images, and all 6,600+ satellites launched to date, from around the world, are a conspiracy.
Attention all readers, in Mr dwarfdeath’s previous answer, it is evident he can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into this most important topic and secondly, he Actually comes out in public and admits he believes nasa accidentally taped over the original moon landing recordings. I am not usually given to mean spiritedness but Mr dwarfdeaths has brought out the angry in me. To me, he represents the typical armchair critic who does nil research of his own, believes all he is shown and told by his god in the corner (his tv) and even if he does pick up a slight whiff of double dealings being beamed out at him by his god, he will still steadfastly refuse to allow his brain to take him where he philosophically and spiritually does dare to go. For these reasons Mr dwarfdeaths, you get the reality you desrve. If you hadn’t started off so mocking, I promise you ai would not have been so mocking myself.but sometimes you crowd deserve to be treated the way you treat others.
If you believe NASA indeed tape over the moon landing footage, you do not deserve any more time being wasted upon you. However, fyi, I have bought a £2000 camera and scope and I will be putting up my own high quality channel very soon. I will send you the link when it is done.
ransomovitch
I look forward to seeing what you produce with your own equipment.
I’m a bit confused by your repeated assertion that I’ve not done these experiments when I have outright stated that I have.
Also, simply asserting how ridiculous it is to believe that NASA recorded over their moon landing tapes is really unproductive and unnecessary. The tapes were only ever recorded in case the live broadcast failed – it didn’t, and it was recorded in a myriad of other places. It was undoubtedly of a higher quality, and it is a regrettable in hindsight that they recorded over them, but I can easily conceive of it happening in the early 1980s.
Speaking of unnecessary and unproductive, you really could lay off the insults and sarcasm a bit – I’ve not been nearly so impolite.
Finally, I’ll ask one more time (though I will not be awake to see your response tonight), what is your response to Mt. Becker being below the horizon?
Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch
Sorry to butt in on your little debate.
You do know that NASA didn’t video record anything don’t you? They used actual good old fashioned film. Therefore it would be impossible to record over the original footage. IMPOSSIBLE.
slymonster Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch
They used a film to record the signal being sent from the cameras on the moon. The film itself was on the ground at NASA, not with the mission. It was kept in case the live broadcast failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
The live broadcast did not fail, however, so the tapes were not necessary (thought they were probably higher quality), and at some point in the 1980s they got erased and recorded over. Basically, they had exactly the same information as was broadcast live, but did had fewer processing steps before recording.
Dwarfdeaths slymonster ransomovitch
So they do still have some of the original recordings (more original in fact as they had less processing done to them)? Just not all of them? So the statement that they ‘taped over the original recordings’ made by some people is a little inaccurate.
Dwarfdeaths slymonster ransomovitch
I think this may help clear up some of the misconceptions:
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Erroneous_newspaper_report_garners_publicity_for_Moon_landing_tapes
NASA still has some of the original recordings in a different format, before being converted, and has made these available.
ransomovitch
I’m confused. Some flat earthers say that the drop should be about 8 inches per mile while you quote it as being 1.1 feet per mile.
I am fortunate in that I live on the coast, in the Solent, One of the busiest stretches of water in the world, so can see the drop as ships constantly sail over the horizon.
It’s 8 inches per mile squared
BradJansen everyone who knows what they are talking about should join us on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com its brand new but off to a great start
we want to be extremely thorough in debunking this bunk
OK globers two simple questions, firstly, do you actually believe nasa lost or taped over the original Apollo 11 moon landing footage – the greatest (hahaha) achievement in aviation history? If you do, you are only lying to yourself. Secondly, why do the ISS astro girls need to perm their hair upwards to make it look like they’re floating in 0 g? I am NOT going to provide the youtube links that show this is easily the case, and do you know why? Because YOU yes YOU readers are responsible for your own journey to truth in this life. It’s not a case of he said, she said, they said. the responsibility for that journey is yours and YOURS alone. If you do undertake this little piece of homework for yourselves, you will start a journey that will take you down a rabbit hole you will eventually thank God HE led you down and out the other side into a freedom you didn’t know existed. Nuff said
ransomovitch
What do either of these questions have to do with the earth being round?
If you have a hypothesis about the shape of the earth, you should be able to provide
1) Evidence that the current model is flawed (has things it fails to explain)
2) Predictions that would necessarily arise from your own model which can be tested
3) The results of the tests proposed in (2), which support your claim
This is how science works – the model that holds up the best under scrutiny, and which proves the most successful at making predictions, wins. Using the round earth model, we can successfully predict wind patterns, celestial body positions, plane flight paths, and even send things into orbit, such as GPS satellites.
If you don’t believe the evidence people present, you’re free to reject it – but if you want to convince people that the earth is flat, you need to provide substantial evidence that the prevailing model is flawed – has things it fails explain – and that your model succeeds when the old one fails.
It’s a tall order, but as you said, you are responsible for your own journey.
No my friend, I’ve done my journey on round earth flat earth, you are just reacting from the hip, you haven’t travelled any distance at all on this road, tha t is so easy to tell, therefore, I am not taking a horse to water just to watch it stand there mock and not drink, this is your journey, I have discharged my duty.
ransomovitch
You’re free to refuse to support your position – just know that you have no grounds to complain when the rest of society continues to believe that the earth is round. Like I said: science is open to new models, but it’s not going to change unless it’s given evidence.
Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch I’ve never seen a proper mathematical model of flat Earth that can hold up to scientific scrutiny. However, ransomovitch, there is 6′ 5″ tall man dressed as a white bunny in your garage. I know this. Now disprove me. Don’t try taking pictures and photoshopping out the bunny. You aren’t going to fool me with that. I fell for that once, but I am not going to fall for it twice.
ransomovitch Get a pair of very powerful binoculars and look at the shadows of the hills on the moon. Look at the shapes of the craters go from circles in the center to ellipses on the edges. I think we can agree that it’s round.
ransomovitch
The original Apollo 11 moon landing footage was taken on good old fashioned film, not a video tape. Therefore it would be impossible to record over.
Where this idea comes from that NASA ever said this I do not know.
slymonster ransomovitch I guess thats what search means?
ransomovitch slymonster
Okay. A quick search and guess what. They didn’t tape over the ‘original’ recordings, and have never said that they did. They think they might have taped over some of a particular type of recording.
I guess it is this ‘selectiveness’ that allow flat earthers to use poor science to over-complicate something which is actually very simple.
ransomovitch slymonster Get a telescope or binoculars. Take a trip to antartica. There are nice trips available.
ransomovitch slymonster Aren’t you clever, now for homework I want you to show me how Euler’s method can be used to solve ordinary differential equations. Let me say in advance, you can’t respond with Euler was shill or Euler was lying. Hint, he didn’t work for NASA. He wasn’t even American.
Not a single one of the 10 prove the Earth is round. A sphere can be converted to a Planisphere and equilibrium will occur between heliocentricity and geocentric flat plane. To understand this I urge you to YouTube a video called “Vedic Cosmology – Mysteries of the Sacred Universe.” Let’s break this down, try to keep up:
#1 The Moon is farther than the Sun we know this because Millisecond Pulsed Ruby Lasers (MIT 1962 7yrs before Apollo Missions) bounced off the Moon reveal it is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm a year. The Sun’s distance is fixed to the Earth. The Moon can orbit above a planisphere just as it can appear to orbit a sphere, this is well documented, viewed from above the ecliptic orbit looks like the Flower of Life. Not proof of a spheroid Earth.
#2 Ships on the Horizon appear to fall beyond the horizon because of our perspective vision’s “vanishing point,” reflected light from the Sun off the bottom of a ship’s hull falls below the vanishing point making it disappear from the bottom up. But the horizon never passes the bottom of the hull, the ship simply vanishes upward, above the horizon not downward falling below the horizon. This is well understood, get on board. Not proof of a spheroid Earth with curvature.
#3 Varying Star Constellations are another trick of perspective vision. Whether you are on a rotating sphere with fixed stars around or a flat plane with a dome, planetarium-like, set of stars above that rotate you will experience equilibrium. Or planetariums wouldn’t work as accurately as they do; also the reason stars rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere is the same reason the faces of the moon are opposite in opposite hemispheres, its the direction at which you are viewing the sky above and location on the Earth, like having a different seat in a 25,000 mile wide planetarium and perceiving different rotations. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
#4 Shadows and Sticks produce equal results on a sphere with a Sun 93,000,000 miles away and a flat plane with a Sun 3,000 miles above that orbits along an ecliptic between the Tropics (exactly like the Moon). When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth he simply calculated the orbit of the Sun along it’s ecliptic during a solar day, this is well understood. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
#5 Seeing farther from higher is another result of perspective vision, when you look at the horizon no matter what height it is always eye level and always perfectly flat because your vision rises the lowest point of vision up to the center of vision (the vanishing point) and the highest point of vision down to the center of vision. Like standing on a railroad tracks and watching the parallel tracks meet at the vanishing point about 3 miles away 6ft above sea level; no matter how high you go you will experience the same phenomenon. Not proof of spherical Earth.
Please don’t get the flat earth construction mixed up with Vedic cosmology. This revealing of flat earth construction I these last days. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, One of the Triune Living Glorious Attributes of the God of the Bible, Creator of Heaven and earth. Our flat earth was not made by a committee of gods. There is One True Creator and His Name is Jesus. Revelation makes it clear the dome will split asunder and He will reveal Himself to the whole earth as He brings righteous judgment upon a wicked earth. This flat earth revival is the work of a loving God Who wants all to come to know Him before He returns in Glory. Read what He has to say about NASA in Obadiah v1-4. Get ready people. The days are only going to get darker and more deceptive. But those who put their trust in the Lord of Heaven and earth will not lose their minds in the last days. They will stand firm in the strength of Christ Jesus. Seek Him while He still may be found.
AlexxFresh
#1, The Moon is further away from the Earth than the Sun?
I cannot get my head around this one.
You know this because the Moon is moving away from the Earth by a few cm a year, so must be further away?
My wife just drove to work. I watched her move away from me at about 30mph before she drove out of sight. Does that mean she was further away from me than the sun?
Have you ever seen a solar eclipse, where the moon comes between the Sun and Earth? I have. I trust my eyes, I know what I saw. The Moon was closer to us than the Sun.
slymonster
Believe me I realize how asinine this must sound to you and that’s OK. Have you ever seen a “Selenelion Eclipse?” In Vedic Cosmology the Moon is said to be slightly further than the Sun and does not perform Eclipses. Eclipses are said to be performed by “Rahu” and “Ketu,” celestial bodies that are closer than the Sun. These bodies are said to be 0% reflective and absorb 100% of light. They Eclipse the Sun and the Moon separately and it is a very sacred thing. I realize this proves nothing, but that’s my point exactly: The Moon does not prove a spherical Earth as much as it does not prove Rahu and Ketu exists.
AlexxFresh slymonster
A globular earth is proved by pretty much all space travel we do, as all of it involves orbital mechanics.
I urge you to look up the Hemispherium Astrolabe from Ancient India. Also the Antikythera Mechanism from Ancient Greece; Michael T Wright built a replica model and the orbits are synchronistic above a flat planisphere. Next lookup the Surya Siddhanta which translated the Bhagavatam’s detailed descriptions of the planet’s orbits and relative distances in geocentric form; academics used this data to formulate the Heliocentric Model starting in the 12th century and perfected in the 16th. Things can exist outside your realm of thinking. Believe me, I was taught everything you were, I have always been obsessed with cosmology. I just prefer Ancient teachings over modern astronomy after the plethora of information I’ve learned. It’s a personal opinion. But one thing you must remember is the Heliocentric Model is a Theory not scientific fact; just because you were indoctrinated (as all of us were) into believing it’s scientific fact doesn’t mean it is. Please research my above links to lectures by professors and draw your own conclusions about the Model and if you’re scientific and unbiased you will see why people are drawing such outlandish conclusions; I try not to speculate but it still tends to happen.
AlexxFresh As soon as someone utters the phrase, ‘it’s a theory not fact’, it shows shows a very ignorant misunderstanding of science at a very basic level. By uttering this term I find it very hard to believe that you were taught as much as I were, even if you had sat in every class and lecture by my side.
Besides my learning, I will repeat, I have seen the moon move in front of the sun. That’s just a full stop. I cannot consider any type of postulation that argues that the moon is further away from us than the sun. Millions of people have seen this happen. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant and bizarre when it comes from a group of people who demand photographic proof that the earth is not flat!
Double standards just start to look like desperation eventually.
slymonster AlexxFresh
I know just about everything there is to know about modern astronomy. From the Cavendish Experiment to the Redshift from Quasars in nearby Galaxies violating Hubble Law. If you wish to detest my intellect instead of research my claims, this is your initiative and you are entitled to it.
AlexxFresh slymonster When you’re older these conversations are going to be so embarrassing for you.
BrianGrubba AlexxFresh slymonster
I’m sorry you feel this way. I am always learning, thus I will never be satisfied with my current knowledge at any given time. I can never take a final stance on something because I know any “theory” can be disproved in the future. Furthermore, simply because some facts give weight to one theory does not mean those facts cannot completely destroy that same theory in the future.
AlexxFresh BrianGrubba slymonster I dunno I feel like when thousands of observable experiments have been done for hundreds of years you can kind of rely on the data rather than a slight mental illness (not trying to insult you but paranoia is not a trait of the firm).
I wouldn’t even be here if this garbage forum software would let me unsubscribe. I’ve unsubscribed 5 times and I still get notifications. So I may as well join in!
slymonster AlexxFresh
Regarding the phrase “it’s a theory not a fact” you should probably reevaluate modern astronomy: its called theoretical science for a reason.
#6 Ride a plane: if you look at an Azimuthal Equatorial map of the Earth you can see how a plane traveling along the equator due east, using a compass to stay due east keeping north always to the left, will travel in a seemingly straight path but will inevitably arc around the North Pole completing a circumnavigation of the Earth, this is true on a flat plane and a sphere. Most commercial planes fly at a cruising altitude of 35,000ft; if the spherical Earth is 24,901miles in circumference than for every mile the horizon should drop about 8 inches. At 35,000ft it would be too low in altitude to see any curvature of Earth, that would only happen at 80,000ft (Pythagorean Theorem) but if you Youtube videos of independent balloons launched into space (without a fisheye or wide-field lens, no GoPro) the horizon stays flat up to 120,000ft, no ballon or independent rocket can go higher for some reason so we can never see a curvature, is actually proves the Earth is a seemingly infinite plane. The Ancient Vedic Srimad Bhagavatam from India describes the “Bhu-Mandala 4,000,000,000 miles wide as the Earth within a rotating spherical Universe called the Brahmanda. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
#7 Look at Other Planets, Ancient Vedic Cosmology explains that celestial bodies orbit above the 4,000,000,000 mile wide flat plane Earth in perfect sequence, from above their orbits draw the Flower of Life, as all orbits above a flat plane do. To understand this one must forget what they think they know about Earth and the Universe and imagine the Flat Plane Earth as a divider in the perfect centre of a rotating spherical Universe from edge to edge, like a dime fixed perfectly in the center of a rotating marble. Forget the Theory of Gravity drawing mass toward the core of a rotating sphere, which contradicts centrifugal force, and imagine the rotating Universe with the flat plane Earth centered and apply centrifugal force: all mass would be forced to the edges of the inner wall of the Universe and to both sides of the dividing flat plane Earth (this is how we’re held down to the Earth). According to the Vedas there is 2,000,000,000 miles (25 koti yojanas) between the North Pole and Polaris; centrifugal force within a spherical Universe this large would create a phenomenon at about 1,000,000,000 miles above the North Pole (centre) where forces cannot draw mass toward the edge of the Universe or the side of the dividing flat plane Earth. This creates a section of the Universe where Celestial Bodies can exists: planets dwarf planets, and exoplanets, there is no Solar System in this model. This also implies there is a mirrored flat plane Earth below often referred to as “The Underworld.” Looking at other Planets and applying its characteristics to Earth as a sphere is speculation at best, not proof of a spherical Earth.
#8 The existence of Time Zones is equal on a sphere with a Sun 93,000,000 miles away and a flat plane with a Sun orbiting 3,000 miles above, I urge you to lookup Gleason’s “The New Standard Map of the World” made in 1892; an Azimuthal Equatorial map that shows time zones along the outer edges of the round, flat map. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
#9 The Center of Gravity: Gravity is a Theory not scientific fact. The Center of Mass on a flat plane Earth no matter what the size would always be relatively parallel to the flat plane, as in below the flat plane equal across the entire plane. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
#10 Images from Space are Composites not “Photographs.” Satellites like Hubble doesn’t use color film. In fact, it doesn’t use film at all. Rather, its cameras record light from the universe with special electronic detectors. These detectors produce images of the cosmos not in color, but in shades of black and white. For some reason film will not work in space this cannot be proven or disputed as United Nation Countries’ Space Agencies are the only ones who could do such thing. Probability of manipulation of these images are far too high to be considered as proof positive images. Not proof of a spherical Earth.
I have been trying to prove the Theory of the Heliocentric Model using empirical data and common sense and it just cannot be done. It is far too flawed. I am going to create a Youtube Page and express all of my findings. But I need to do more research. Nothing on this page proves the Earth is spherical shaped or even a Planet for that matter. I don’t expect you to believe any of my beliefs as that would not be scientific. I expect you to be empirical and unbiased, although that is hard in this day in age because we have been completely indoctrinated to believe the Heliocentric Model as scientific fact. Reject this and challenge everything. I’m still seeking the true knowledge of our ancient Universe; it will not be handed to me on a silver platter, I will be fooled by the status quo; but I will look past this and succeed in my findings by devoting my life to it. God Bless you all!
AlexxFresh
#10 The hubble doesn’t use colour film at all? No kidding. What a job that would be, flying up to the hubble to change the film every few days, taking it to the chemist to get the negatives developed……
And yes, I guess you could say that it takes shades of black and white as the signal is converted into 1’s and 0’s by the DAC before being transmitted. The same way our digital cameras store colour pictures as 1’s and 0’s on our memory cards.
slymonster
The point I’m making is with the trillions of dollars spent for NASA’s budget why is the pubic OK with composites? Just shut the conspiracy idiots up and show some proof; they’d do that if they could leave LEO past the Van Allen Radiation Belts which cause radiation poisoning like the 1999 crew who experienced seeing lights like “flying stars” when they closed their eyes after entering the brim of the inner belt. Here is an interesting link:
http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/14/video-nasas-orion-engineer-admits-they-cant-get-past-van-allen-radiation-belts/
AlexxFresh slymonster
Ignoring the fact that we have satellites in geosynchronous orbit (much higher), It seems like low earth orbit should be proof enough that he earth is round. It’s in the name: it’s an orbit. If you accept that there is an orbit, how exactly does this fit with a flat earth?
Dwarfdeaths
Orbits are parallel around a sphere or above a planisphere; I have provided links and videos with time stamps in an above comment. LEO is perfectly possible. Getting past the radiation – not so much.
Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh slymonster
Geosynchronous orbits from American GPS and Russian GLONASS are very peculiar, indeed. LORAN was the predecessor of GPS. Base stations positioned 50 miles apart, accompanied by miles of cables (land and deep sea), could coordinate locations for the US Military. These base stations and cables all still exist. They were very accurate, it begs the question: why switch to satellites that require many to be in geosynchronous orbit, simultaneously, to maintain a connection when the LORAN system could just be upgraded? Base stations don’t pass below the horizon and out of the communicative line of sight, and more stations can be added. The accuracy would never be lost. Perhaps this is why GPS signals loose accuracy with altitude; because they are not connecting to satellites a million miles away, but instead to base towers on the ground.
AlexxFresh Dwarfdeaths slymonster
Why use satellites instead of ground-based systems?
First, coverage: satellites a much larger area per unit, rendering them vastly more cost effective for getting worldwide coverage. (Compare the two images
Second, accuracy: the worst-case accuracy of GPS is about the same as the best possible accuracy of LORAN systems in their hay-day (6-7m). the best possible accuracy for GPS, with additional systems to correct for errors (ex. atmosphere) can reach centimeter and even millimeter-level accuracy.
So, in short: GPS better, both in cost and theoretical limitations. That’s why.
AlexxFresh slymonster Well of course they have to test the shielding before they send people up. The same way they had to test the shielding on the Apollo missions. The same way every car manufacturer has to crash test any new production cars. Different shapes, even using the same technology they have to test for leaks and ensure all the latest electronics (which are a lot more fragile than their 60’s counterparts are shielded enough) . He did not say Nasa doesn’t know how to get past the radiation, just that they need to make sure their new design will.
So although you might think that link was interesting, it wasn’t. It’s just common sense. Stop trying to read between the lines. It just makes you look either ignorant.
Why is it that conspiracy theorists jump on any little thing and blow it out of all proportion?
AlexxFresh slymonster Oh, and there’s plenty of ‘proof’. Millions of people believe the proof. So why should Nasa spend any time at all on the fools that listen to idiots on the net who use poor science to try to disprove them?
AlexxFresh Get a telescope.
Attention all readers Mr dwarfdeaths can’t be arsed to carry out his own research into the flat earth because he has more important things to do, secondly, he really does believe NASA accidentally taped over the original moon landing footage, (leaving no room any longer to have anybody demand the footage be made public so it’s obvious flaws can be revealed for the world to see) make of Mr DwarfDeaths what you will. I am not generally mean-spirited towards people but in Mr dwarfdeaths, we see the typical gullible, armchair critic, spouting all the usual conventional claptrap, with an obvious brain however but not daring to engage it. Mr dwarfdeaths, for your lazy, intellectually dishonest approach to thinking about life, you get the ‘reality’ you desreve
ransomovitch
I just stated I HAVE done experiments and didn’t record them for Youtube. If anyone is being dishonest, it’s you.
I’m not here to make excuses for mistakes made by other people. I asked you a simple question: do you believe that all 50 space agencies, all footage and images, and all 6,600+ satellites launched to date, from around the world, are a conspiracy?
Dwarfdeaths ransomovitch I would like to see the results of that experiement also.
ransomovitch Conventional captrap. The same claptrap that built your computer, dvd player, Xbox, cellphone, and anything else you use. We got all that stuff right, but damn, we can’t figure out how to fly a plane or space rocket or take a photograph. It’s hard to believe a global society as advanced as we are can get so many technical things right but get this one thing so wrong.
ransomovitch Please contact these folks, tell them what you believe. I think out sheer amazement they will invite you down to the south pole. http://www.usap.gov/
If this isn’t good enough, get in your boat and go around Antartica and measure the distance. It shouldn’t be anywhere near the distance as shown on the flat disk model. If you truly are going to dedicate your life to this, I fear you are going to waste a good life. There are some really quick ways for some very experienced and learned people to help you.
I would find debates like this useful if:
a) The flat-earthers could provide evidence of a flat earth without referring to having to go on your own journey to find it.
b) Flat-earthers wouldn’t refer to Christianity (Christianity by and large has never believed in a flat Earth and that is not what the bible teaches)
c) Flat-earthers would not ‘cherry pick’ what parts of science to believe in.
d) Flat-earthers would not demand photographs of a spherical Earth when they themselves cannot produce one photograph of a flat Earth.
e) Flat-earthers ignore all photographic evidence taken by all agencies, private companies and private individuals, often citing the reason the horizon looks curved is the use of a wide angle lens.
f) Flat-earthers ignore the fact that the Russians would have been the first to disprove that the Americans ever made it to the moon.
g) Flat-earthers believe in god. Yet fail to see that it was faith that was the first way to convince people to believe in something without any evidence in order to control them. Yet they say that all the scientists and governments of the world are conspiring to make us believe the Earth is a globe in order to control us.
h) Flat-earthers ignore all of the ordinary people whose jobs would not be possible if the Earth was not a globe.
i) Flat-earthers would not dismiss the evidence placed before them without providing an acceptable scientific counter argument.
j) Flat-earthers would get their fact straight and be able to think for themselves. That means being able to point towards empirical evidence rather than some idiotic youtube video that perpetuates poor science.
k) Flat-earthers would not say things like ‘gravity is just a theory’.
l) Flat-earthers wouldn’t tell you to trust your eyes and then tell you that the sun is closer to the Earth than the moon and is always above the horizon.
m) Flat-earthers would not tell you that you cannot trust what anyone says because everything you’ve been told is a lie/conspiracy yet refer to the bible or some random Youtube video as if that is telling you the truth.
and many, many more salient points.
slymonster I have to believe that they simply think it’s a “cool idea” and are arguing the case for it out of boredom. The amount of evidence debunking a flat Earth is insurmountable.
BrianGrubba slymonster I believe they are generally disenfranchised from normal social intercourse. They have probably been forcibly alienated by mainstream thinkers and are looking for something to call their own. Something to hang on to that makes them feel special and unique. They may not have the capacity to understand the science or even understand that there are things beyond their ability to understand. Therefore, in comes the cognitive dissonance to adjust the reality to what they are capable of understanding. With the internet, these folks can make some noise and be heard for the first time. But to make any true headway in society with these kind of baseless claims, they would have to communicate more effectively to gain more “believers” . A few of these video makers advantage of the folks looking to feel special. The people that follow these conspiracy theorists have a real conspiracy right in front of them — the guy making the video. They should be investigating those people, and actually they do. I’ve seen videos where the video makers are taking each other down. Fun!
Yes, to summarize it’s boredom. These aren’t usually mothers of 4 who work full time and have to rush home to make dinner. These are people with too much time on their hands.
slymonster Your note “F” is the killer. Unless… THE RUSSIANS AND AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS COLLUDED!
slymonster It is not a debate. Let’s say you are a kindergarten teacher and these people with the flat Earth claim are the students. While teaching the colors red, green and yellow, one student defecates on the floor. He points and says, “yellow!”. You say brown.
Hey Slymonster…
While have outlined some good points but not good enough to debunk the earth is a round flat plane. Two challenges for you….please explain why galaxies are flat…and why Nasa lies to us…look forward to your reply.
apollo11
I like how it’s our job to debunk a flat earth rather than your job to provide evidence that the scientific consensus is wrong. Google burden of proof.
As for galaxies being flat – the short answer is angular momentum.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUtJM
Dwarfdeaths apollo11
Hi Dwarf…..thanks for the info….
apollo11 Dwarfdeaths
I apologize for skipping your second question – for some reason I didn’t notice it the first time I read.
You claim that the consensus is wrong, and then go on to ignore evidence produced by NASA by saying they are lying to us. Again, burden of proof is on you. I will point out, however, that NASA is not REMOTELY the only space agency that has been to space or taken pictures while they were there. You live in a world where we have over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving many, many, people, and allowing for such technologies as GPS, satellite televisions, radio, and broadband, expanded mobile networks, and remote sensing/imaging.
Do you really think all of that is a lie, when the Nixon administration couldn’t even handle Watergate? NASA isn’t our only source of information about space, but they are one of the oldest and best funded for exploratory purposes – hence why they produce so much information about our planet, our solar system, and the universe in general.
apollo11 Only certain shaped galaxies are flat, so that does not provide any sway either way.
Please cite these NASA lies. Give us proof that they lie, and I don’t mean some trumped up evidence that has been manipulated and put on Youtube, or some poorly researched and misunderstood media circus.
slymonster apollo11 Don’t play into this deflection. The argument that Organization X (fill in the X) lies is spurious, endless and irrelevant and plays into the only thing the people with alternative theories know. I can’t play chess, so let’s play tic tac toe instead. No we are playing chess. Don’t play chess or don’t want to LEARN chess, then go away.
devinsidney slymonster apollo11 So far every time a flat earther has been called out to explain the conspiracy, they went silent. To me that’s a suitable “win”.
apollo11 Have you ever spun cotton candy?
Why does anyone even bother arguing with these people? They aren’t ever going to be in a position to do anything important in the world. Just let them LARP.
BrianGrubba I like that. That they are LARPing.It’s probably the only explanation I can understand.
Really?. well, if these are the proofs the earth is not flat, it’s just an extremly weak theory. you certainly didn’t do good to your cause. Ridiculous.
DaniloCavriago
Lol @ pictures being extremely weak evidence. Only in the flat earth world…
DaniloCavriago You cannot have a ‘weak’ scientific theory. Look up the definition of a scientific theory.
We know the North Star does seem to move as the Earth rotates. It appears as a stable constant in the Northern Hemisphere. Knowing this it should be able to be seen anywhere on the flat earth model/map. This is not the case. There are places in the Southern Hemisphere that cannot see the North Star and cannot see some other Northern Hemisphere stars/constellations. The same can be said for the Northern Hemisphere not seeing Southern Hemisphere stars. Also the stars in both hemispheres move east to west BUT they will appear to move in different directions in the two hemispheres. This is known as Diurnal motion. Looking up in the Northern hemisphere they stars will move east to west in counter-clockwise motion around the North Star. Looking up in the Southern hemisphere the stars move east to west in clockwise motion around Sigma Octantis, the closest star to the south pole. I guess that deflates the flat earth theory like a New England Patriot deflating footballs…
brijenn12 This is simply perspective and can also be explained by a flat pane being so wide (say 4,000,000,000 miles) that not all constellations are visible from opposite hemispheres. It can also explain the star’s opposing rotations as size affects perspective and looking North you will see counterclockwise while looking South you will see clockwise rotations. We can debate for days, the fact of the matter is, they are both interchangeable and there are ad hoc theories that can explain both. Why can’t NASA shut everyone up and just take some real photos, or leave LEO? Why are you paying them trillions of dollars and being OK with composites?
AlexxFresh brijenn12
I don’t know exactly what your deal is with composite images – it’s just a combination of several “real photos.”
NASA has been beyond LEO, has taken single photographs of the entire earth from several different spacecraft on missions, (the first being from the moon) and collected lots of other really useful data from space besides. I also don’t get most FE’s fixation with NASA in general.
You live in a world where we have over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving millions of people, and allowing for such technologies as GPS, satellite televisions, radio, and broadband, expanded mobile networks, and remote sensing/imaging.
Do you really think all of that is a lie, when the Nixon administration couldn’t even handle Watergate? NASA isn’t our only source of information about space, but they are one of the oldest and best funded for exploratory purposes – hence why they produce so much new information about our planet, our solar system, and the universe in general.
You are free to ignore all evidence from space, but quite frankly it is the simplest way to prove the shape of the earth and also happens to be the type of evidence that you seem least likely to accept.
Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
Hi Dwarf….you made a good point regarding Nixon and Watergate….however the only so-called photograph of the earth was taken in 1972 which Nasa calls “The Blue Marble”…..out of all those space flights Nasa conducted and the thousands of Billions of dollars they have received from the taxpayers..the best they can produce is one photo in the past 43 years?…….forget the FE theories for now….there is ample and credible evidence to support that Nasa has lied to the public…does this factor into anything?
Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
Hi Dwarf….must say that you made a good point regarding Nixon and Watergate….speaking of Nixon…why was he not present during the lift-off of Apollo11…the biggest show on earth?…one other note….the only so-called photograph of the Earth was taken in 1972 which Nasa calls “The Blue Marble”…..out of all those space missions Nasa conducted and the thousands of Billions of dollars they have raked in from the taxpayers..the best they can produce is one photo in the past 43 years?…….forget the FE theories for now….there is ample and credible evidence to support that Nasa has lied to the public…does this factor into anything?
apollo11 Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
Would you people stop it with the ‘only one photo’ things. Do a quick search on google.
Here: http://www.livescience.com/20369-earth-pictures-space.html
this is what you can come up with in the first 30 seconds if you are really that interested. STOP believing everything you read and do a little research.
apollo11 Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12
First, I will refer you to slymonster’s response about many other photos taken. We have lots of pictures.
Second, Nixon’s whereabouts are irrelevant to the validity of the evidence you’re presented with.
“There is ample and credible evidence to support that NASA has lied to the public.”
You claim this, yet fail to demonstrate it. Evidence please.
And, perhaps more importantly, even if NASA has told lies (large government agencies are prone to mistakes and corruption, I freely admit), you are entirely missing my main point, which is that NASA is not remotely the only presence in space. Reread my first reply:
There are over 50 countries capable of space flight from around the world, having launched over 6,600 satellites, commercial and governmental. It’s become a several-hundred billion dollar industry, involving millions of people, and allowing for new technologies.
This is not about NASA, it’s the entire world. My point is this: when you have a conspiracy involving literally millions of people, it is virtually impossible to keep it a secret. Frankly, it would be easier to actually GO to the moon than to conduct such a large deception, given that we’ve had the technology to do so for decades.
Dwarfdeaths apollo11 AlexxFresh brijenn12 aaaaand you shut him down. 😉 It’s that easy.
Dwarfdeaths apollo11 AlexxFresh brijenn12 Again with the US-centric point of view. This isn’t about NASA or US politicians. It’s science.
Dwarfdeaths apollo11 AlexxFresh brijenn12 Yeah, but this goes to 11.
Dwarfdeaths AlexxFresh brijenn12 Why just NASA? What about the Japanese, Indian, Russian and European space agencies to name just a few.
Get a telescope.
AlexxFresh brijenn12 In your flat earth disk postulation I can see how anyone following a compass to true north would meet. But following a compass to true south? How would that work if South is millions of miles in circumference?
AlexxFresh brijenn12 Honestly, navigating on a flat earth by compass would become logarithmically more difficult the further South (or towards the edge) you went. But I assure you that it is not any more difficult in the furthest reaches of Australia or South America than it is in Northern Europe. Think about that for a few seconds. Give me some sort of reasonable explanation why it is no more difficult. Do the math first though, or I will just shout you down.
AlexxFresh brijenn12 But it cannot explain why Sigma Octans can be seen three continents simultanously looking south on all of them. The math doesn’t work out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4CPL4mcpDc
slymonster
You can only learn if you wish to learn. Your cognitive dissonance will not allow you to learn anything if you cannot open your mind to the possibilities of things existing in a way other than how you originally perceive.
Do not believe anything I say, because I am simply stating my opinion. When I provide verifiable facts, verify them on your own so that you are not “taking my word for it.” I am going to present you with three YouTube Videos. These are not your average morons behind a mic speculating to the Moon and back. These are lectures from scholars taken from a classroom in a University and posted to YouTube. I do not expect you to be convinced by anything I or they say, but simply take it at face value. I wish you the best in your quest for knowledge or quest to disprove those who esteem to be enlightened.
Professor Phillip Scott giving a lecture of the origins of the Heliocentric Model. This video is two hours long so I’ll save you some time and suggest you watch between 22:30 to 44:35. Within these two time stamps, he expounds all the scientific data failing to prove rotundity or rotation of Earth; complete with names, dates and experiments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHykDpLQelw
Doctor Richard Thompson giving a lecture of Vedic Cosmology and Creation vs The Big Bang. It is also two hours long, I do not have special time stamps for this as it is all amazing, but this may not be for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueQ-gBYkbis
Lastly, this is not a lecture but still an educational video about Vedic Cosmology. It is almost an hour long but you only need to watch the first fifteen minutes or so to get the idea of a planisphere to sphere conversion (6:30). It explains Vedic Cosmology in a way most Heliocentric’s can appreciate. The video even detests the Flat Earth Model calling it “naive”(14:15) but this is only because the video is made by a University that backs the Heliocentric Model. It states the Earth is round (7:30) because of sunrise and sunset, but that can be disputed with the explanation of the Sun (9:30) and its opposite darkness (10:00). It also mentions the Astrolabe (18:05) and how accurate it is Geocentrically to Heliocentricity in planisphere to sphere conversion.
(Time stamps in parenthesis)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD4opuIJFhE
I have no interest in converting anyone from Heliocentric to Geocentric or Flat Earth.
AlexxFresh slymonster I have no issue with studying ancient cosmology, but that does not make it true.
If I explained how Sherlock Holmes solved the case of the Scarlett Shoes, that does not mean that Sherlock Holmes ever existed.
There have been many ideas and models throughout history. But only one has been scientifically confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.
There are videos on Youtube that want you to believe that Aliens have a secret base on the moon. I have no interest in even entertaining this idea either.
AlexxFresh
None of these videos are even remotely scientific.
BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
The videos, which I doubt you watched, are lectures and an educational video.
AlexxFresh BrianGrubba I skimmed through them and picked up the gist of what he was getting at. I don’t need to sit through a 2 hour lecture by someone who clearly doesn’t have a concrete grasp of astrophysics in order to come to a conclusion.
BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
Dr. Phillip Scott is a PhD in astrophysics.
AlexxFresh BrianGrubba Well someone needs to take that away because he’s clearly showing signs of dementia.
AlexxFresh BrianGrubba “We don’t have time to go through all of them…”
Convenient.
BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
I provided time stamps for Dr. Philip Scott’s lecture (22:30-44:35); explaining how the renaissance astronomers got to the Heliocentric Model from previous models. It is accurate in dates, times, names, tests, and conclusions. If you do no wish to watch, and maintain he is not qualified; that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. The material between those time stamps can be verified by extensive research. He does not speculate or give his opinion, he simply states historic facts.
AlexxFresh BrianGrubba I apologize for responding. I did so before noticing that you were destroyed in every other comment thread in this article. Have a good day
BrianGrubba AlexxFresh
Again, your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. Good day, sir.
What disturbs me the most is not that these people think conspiracy and flat earth, but that these people exist at all. With the best education, equipment, and solid proof to the contrary the best they come up with is that NASA are in on it and everyone who agrees with Nasa is in on it as well. In on what? For Christ sake. Do some digital tagging so we know who the stupid are when it come time for a culling.
Ruralmale More disturbing is that they have no concept of what they don’t know.
devinsidney If that aint the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is! The amount of ego in that one line…as if scientist have NEVER been wrong! Why is it widely acceptable to call people stupid for questioning what we see and hear today? Our governments lie to us all the time with a straight face and have stats to back it yet we find it extremely unrealistic that we could be being lied to on this? Ask any of these Global Green Earth activist companies such as “Greenpeace, Surfrider, Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, National Resources Defense Council, the California Water Resources Control Board, and others” what the leading cause is for global pollution and waste is and they will all tell you Fossil Fuels and public waste etc. When in all actuality its Animal Agriculture…and these are the folks that are supposed to be trying to “save” the Earth yet they pretend they have no idea what you are talking about when studies have proven its BY FAR the leading cause…did I say BY FAR!!!!!!! Big business is a torn in our sides and they control EVERYTHING…the news, the markets, money, life, truth and lies. Watch Cowspiracy. Now, I’m not sitting here saying that everything should be treated as a conspiracy or cover up but could you really blame people for thinking so when things like this are happening right in front of our eyes EVERYDAY? And trust me they too have stats and numbers that say its not Animal Agriculture…so now you see we ALL have no concept of what we don’t know.
flem34 devinsidney I think you just made my point. A long reply, none of which is about science. You have no understanding of that which you have not experienced. You are deflecting to other topics, mainly a flavor of politics I am not interested in. Keep it to physics and mathematics.
@devinsidney…sorry I was using examples to explain a point. And the topic was, (for this particular post) “concept of what they don’t know”…didn’t deflect to another topic, I just used an example that wasn’t about the earth being flat or round. I very much stayed on point! But here is a better one for you…The Big Bang Theory (science?). So explain to me in detail exactly how this explosion occured? What triggered it, and why? What forces were in play? Oh, no you don’t know?….that’s weird. That’s because it’s equivalent to trying to explain pregnancy and how it came to be without understanding conception first. Clearly another example of something unknown attempting to be explained by folks that weren’t there (“you have no understanding of that which you have not experienced”). And you also say”none of which is about science”…so global warming and pollution have nothing to do with science??? Wrong, Yet so quick to paint me as the ignorant one? In order to have this argument (which I would have preferred to be a DISCUSSION) you have to understand both sides and open your mind a bit and not attempt to look down on people with opposing views to that of your own. The point I bring up was to get you to see that what we know is not always what we think we know. You brag so much about the principles of science and how much fact is involved but leave important parts out about how often this science is actually wrong and how often the full scope of an issue and/or topic is not fully shared with the general public and frequently mislead (which was the point of my reference to “Cowspiracy”). Not saying you will be wrong on this but every century we have a new group of “scientist” trying to make their mark on history and it almost always means the debunking of principles and/or theories previously believed to be fact…maybe some of the ones you have mentioned in your posts, then what happens to all of your FACTS and concepts of things you know?…ahhhh nevermind…I forgot, it’s science, the undefeated champ of knowledge…never wrong…
flem34 You say “both sides?” I believe you are trying to present to me a false dichotomy. I believe there can be more than the two sides. Perhaps there is someone that believes the world is a square and your flat earth is just one side of the square. Let’s say the person that believes in square Earth agrees with your political arguments, that we cannot trust the various institutions, that we are being brainwashed by the government. You are in complete agreement that the world is not a globe. However, now you disagree about flat vs. square. How do you argue your case? You can’t use the arguments that science is sometimes wrong, or NASA is a lying to us. You both agree. So, again, how do you make your case to the square earther?
Sorry, to be more clear, by “both sides” I meant the relevant discussion of FLat vs Round. Absolutely there can be and are other perspectives on the configuration of our planet. A key point to note here, one that I failed to provide clarity on is that I don’t 100% agree with either argument on flat or round. I am here to gain clarity but I have to try my best to argue every point I thought I previously knew. I have just recently opened my eyes and mind to the possibility of a flat earth and only because I felt I would doing myself a diservice by not examining all the aspects of each. Some aspects don’t make sence to me regarding flat earth and you have made several good/great points that make me feel silly for even considering the possibility…but I also can see really good points made by flat earth on why round earth is false, that makes me second guess what I previously knew. I would love to put all my doubts to bed but personal observations of the horizon, clouds etc “appear” to be more consistent with that of a flat surface so I must question what I currently know and see if that holds up with the newly acquired info. Maybe I am misinformed, or naive even but I am trying to be as realistic with myself as can be. And I am not using “science is sometimes wrong” to prove you are wrong…the statements about that are my way of asking you the repetitive question of “how can you be sooooo sure”? Literally just trying to get you to explore all possibilities outside of what we are told and not just write them off as “nonsense”. It’s a fun debate because it makes me think outside of the box and beyond.
flem34 I am glad you enjoy this as a debate. To each their own. From my point of view, there is no debate. I would suggest if you are curious, that you find legitimate sources to enlighten you. I think it is important to revisit the false dilemma — flat vs. globe. If I believe the Earth is a square shape and I agree that we should be more cynical about our government and educational systems, that is, we are being ‘duped’, then how do you convince me the Earth is flat and not a square. Just like you, I believe the Earth being a globe is nothing but a lie. We could agree endlessly about NASA faking photos and governments lying to us. We are so close actually in what we believe. You believe in a flat Earth, I believe we are flat also, but we have six flat sides, albeit, yours is a disc shape. How do you then go about debating me as a Square Earther?
Well for me, what’s more of a legitimate source than self observations? When I look out at the Horizon, I get no indication of it being curved. The horizon makes zero sense when you factor in the numbers provided by NASA. What I would expect to see at the Horizon is not what I see. Studies across the world have shown large areas of land to be absolutely flat where NASA says we should see about 8inches roughly per mile. If you look at the boat video at the top, how do you explain the view from where the camera is set? Well beyond the mileage NASA indicates for curvature. That to me is a legitimate source because the numbers are being put to the test in front of your eyes. But on to the flat vs square. Since we are not actually having this debate (or non-debate as you put it), it would require more specifics on areas we would be discussing. But to humor this a bit let’s say we were “debating” the Horizon as I am above. I would first need to know if they believe we live on one side of this square(all of us) and the sides and bottoms of the square are what’s under us or if they believe that water and land are configured around each side of this square like in a round earth model. If it’s the latter I would say look at the Horizon because we would be able to see the edges of this square as we travel around it. If it’s the former it will be hard. Everyone believes there is something under us, round, square, or flat. How that is actually configured is a point I have not talked much about from a square or flat standpoint. But our points would be very similar in nature unless you dived into something very specific…a square and flat aren’t that much different just like, apparently, round and pear are similar…well according to Neil Degrasse. Just poking fun there, I know I’m taking his comments out of context a bit but circle, round, oval…all similar so concepts and pricicples you believe would also be very similar. How would you go about debating me as an Oval Earther?
flem34 Okay, so you say if the Earth were square we would be able to see the edges of the square as we travel around it. What do we currently see at the edges of flat disc Earth? How does the edge of the flat, disc Earth compare or contrast to the square?
Now we are gonna open a can of worms neither of really care about but I will humor, again. You must realize what I said in my first post to understand the vast differences you are attempting to compare. I said “water and land configured around each side” In reference to your above comment “as we travel around it”….so literally like the “globe” but a 3dimensional square instead of a circle. As we made intersections across the globe we would see the edges of this 3dimensional square since we are living on all 6 sides (I would not be able to travel one side to the other without seeing the edge of those two sides intersecting). The difference is that on flat earth you only live on one plain rather than 6 so there is your difference. For a similarity I would say for any given side…if the people were blocked and confined to their side with no knowledge of the other 5 it would seem exactly the same…minus the fact one is flat square and the other is flat circle. I will continue to humor because I love debate…or non-debate 🙂
flem34 Go to school and take an astro-physics course from a good teacher. Get off the internet and stop watching videos made by frauds and hucksters.
It’s a fraud to time lapse a horizon? It’s fraud to pull data from NASA then compare that data to data from Skippers that have ACTUALLY seen light houses from 40+miles out? It’s fraud to pull actual News coverage of a visual event scientist say could never be seen but when it was they called it a mirage? It’s fraud to take a photo of the sun rays glaring through a cloud and the respective angles of those glares (Rays)? You constantly drill me on what my knowledge of science and math etc…but what is your knowledge of the word “fraud”…you might have the wrong definition or used the wrong word? But I’m here to help you so consider this a gift from Google. “Fraud: is a type of criminal activity, defined as: ‘abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone’s rights for personal gain’. Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party”…you are well within your rights to call it false interpretation, false observation etc if you would like, but nothing about actual footage is deceptive. Abuse of position? For who? False repesentation? Of something you believe to be real? Prejudicing someone’s rights for personal gain? Who’s doing that? Again, you are attempting to make me look stupid and uneducated and using those two things as your sword and shield…which is all fine but you decided to bring a knife or “sword” to a gun fight…swing away my friend but I’m the one with the actual ammo…your sword will dull and your shield will break…and I will still have ammo. Round 2?
devinsidney flem34 When you say “good teacher”, do you mean the same ones that told us Columbus discovered America? Or the ones that tell us George Washington was the first president? (Technically he was the first president of the United States) There were 14 presidents prior to him when we were governed by the Continental Congress. Don’t know about you two, but I never heard of these 14 presidents…ever. In my opinion, we should have learned about the first 14 prior to Washington. Just not the case. If this is news to you, then you should really question how well you were “educated”. But as you know, it’s all about indoctrination.
Here’s one you two can argue about. As you know, Stanley Kubrick has been rumored to have filmed the moon landings. If you research this you will find pics of him meeting with NASA officials. The reason for faking the landings is just simply because we didn’t have the technology to get there and back. In essence, we have a Hollywood film maker creating “history”. Now, we have yet another Hollywood film maker making another journey into the unknown. That film maker would be James Cameron. Did you know that he just made the first manned journey to the very bottom of the Mariana Trench? Now ask yourselves, why James Cameron of all people? He’s no scientist. Why is a film maker doing what is usually reserved for scientists or the military? Now we have Stanley Kubrick filming mans journey to the moon, and do we now have James Cameron filming mans journey to the very bottom of the ocean? When I say filming, I mean faking. Now if you bother digging into was behind the scenes of this record breaking monumental dive, you will find that NASA was heavily involved! Ta dah……………
yardapekazoo68 devinsidney flem34 That’s exactly the type of teaching Devinsidney was referring to. I don’t get too much into things I can’t observe on my own because I don’t general trust the way the media etc works. I could very well see this being true but personally can’t comment any further than that (regarding the film making). You might be better suited for this argument in the event Devinsidney wants to dive deeper (no pun intended). Seems to be a common theme though that some of the most controversial events usually have NASA involvement…could it just be convenient to blame them…could it be true?? Both are unknown to me but what I do know is that in this world when news leaks, there’s USUALLY some truth to it.
devinsidney flem34 Wallace Thornhill (My teacher for today) went to school so I will let him poke holes in your lies “Gravity is FULLY understood”…silly child.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU
He also discusses PLENTY of other theories he finds odd and/or incorrect. I will allow you to watch on your own though. I mean you have probably already seen this since I understand you have infinite knowledge on the topic and I’m just some rookie who did zero research to come to my most recent conclusions. Stop being ignorant and thinking you know EVERYTHING about the universe and more importantly, about me. The moment you stop searching for knowledge is the moment you have just been passed by someone else. Get off your theoretical astro-physics high horse and pretend for just one moment you know why they call it THEORETICAL science. You asked me “Why would something like this come across as educational or legitimate to you”…well to you I say, “what’s more likely to be true”? Something you can physically see and observe or something that relies on equations and calculations (know of which are your own) that are entirely based on a theory and in most cases can’t be seen or detected? Do you feel silly yet? You should…
flem34 There are so many better topics to explore than this one if you are intellectually curious. There is no debate here. The flat Earth position presumes a massive global conspiracy. Russian, American and Chinese space agencies have launched humans into space to orbit the Earth. Many other people from other countries have come for the ride. To believe that we have been fooled to this extent is incomprehensible to me. A person must be extremely disenfranchised from the functioning world to buy into such a conspiracy. Log into FlightAware and track the miles/kilometers traveled by airliners and look at the paths they take. Then try to reconcile this with your flat world map. The numbers won’t work out on your flat earth map, especially in the southern hemisphere. Now, if you say you can’t trust FlightAware or any other site, then I say, why trust these flat Earth videos you watch? Your ability to discriminate frauds and phonies from legitimate practitioners plays a big part in this. I have to believe people who believe these alternate theories do not work as engineers, research scientists, doctors, pilots, navigators, or anything else requiring a prerequisite education based on established science. If you think we can simply be lied to at a global scale and all of these people are in on it, then I can’t help you. Take a flight east or west. A long flight. The Earth is spinning making the daylight that is experienced longer or shorter. The model for how the sun must operate to produce the lighting patterns we see has to involve physics that can’t possibly exist or involves made up psuedo science forces. How is it dark in China when it is light in Canada, then 12 hours later the reverse? Is it the sun that is supposedly moving? By what forces?
Which is why I referenced “COWSPIRACY”. Would you not consider that a global conspiracy? Please watch before you ignorantly comment. If something like that can be a global conspiracy, why is it far fetched that this can be? Please keep in mind that “scientist” have said something completely differnt than what “COWSPIRACY” discovers. If you accept the information in the video as true (which it is) then you have answered your own question.
On to the flights. I man did an interview with a HARVARD GRAD Doctor on science and the DOCTOR admitted in the interview that flights from the west coast headed east bound should experience much different flight times…so he is wrong…or maybe he just misspoke (I should mention that the topic was why flights from the west coast to east coast had the same flight duration as flights from the east coast to the west coast when the earth is spinning at 1000+ mph east bound)? He convientently gave no explanation just like you have done in all this back and forth… But at least he admitted it very much should be VERY different. Also, a cannon experiment was done where they lined up cannons and shot them straight into the air and when the cannon ball came down it landed within 2feet of where it lifted from and in a few cases actually landed right back in the nozzle of the cannon…how does that happen if the earth is spinning at 1000+mph…shouldn’t the ball land very very far since the actual cannon is on the rotating earth yet the ball is not, THUS making it Unsusceptible to the influence of the “spinning earth”. Don’t worry, there was a control in this experiment :). So they decided to point cannons at all points, north, south, east and west…surely we should see some difference now…NOPE…ALL THE SAME RESULTS ( best if you look it up yourself as I’m sure I’m not doing the experiment justice with my explanation).
Crickets.
flem34 Point taken. You were arguing my statement regarding the limits of your scope of expertise. I give you that, sir.
devinsidney flem34 I appreciate that! If you find the time check out this video for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNDgkxILGDQ
In this video the narrator touches on a few key points that have me confused as to how the horizon could be curved. He also has a great video that shows the sun putting a single hot spot on the clouds from up above…how would you explain this? (@32:55 in the video). The sun should cast a unnoticeable glare on the Earth that should gradually go from bright to light when moving from the center hot spot out to the edges of its reach…but instead what we see is a single hot spot as if the sun is very very close. Similar to using a flashlight. The further away the flashlight is from the target the less focused the hot spot will be and it will illuminate across almost seamlessly…however, the closer you get to the target the more centralized the heat and light become.
Back to the Horizon. Another great video clip is @33:20. Explain that for me if you can. It has me puzzled. The sun never appears to come from beneath rather from the distance. Time lapse is great because you can see everything moving around us and at no point in time do we EVER appear to be moving.
@52:36 we look at sun rays. With the sun at the distance it is from Earth, and considering the small nature of Earth by comparison, shouldn’t we see sun rays that would appear parallel to each other? Be honest with yourself and tell me it does not at least APPEAR as if the source of light in that photo is just above those clouds. If someone showed you that picture and you put what YOU KNOW about light and how it reacts to distance, how far would you say it was from those clouds…you might not have an exact number but I can guarantee you wouldn’t bark out 93million miles away.
@1:00:38 the longest bridge in the World is discussed (over 20 miles). This bridge should have had to compensate for curvature of about 384 feet. They said to compensate for the curve they added 2 inches to the bridge…can we do the math on that one?
@1:01:58 the narrator uses a light house and NASA’s data on curvature…NASA’s DATA! For this example I completely get that the numbers cant and won’t be exact due to the violent up and down nature of the Oceans…however, being about a thousand feet off is not due to waves and tides unless this is the greatest storm of all times always brewing in the Oceans.
@1:10:36 this is why no traction can be gained with Flat Earth. They come with hardcore evidence and these guys come back with some BS that no one understands…show me a real instance of a mirage and atmosphere bending images around something? We should be able to replicate this in a lab on a small scale at least…this is the problem. You speak about not being able to “understand that which you have not experienced” well to that I say, recreate it. If you understand it so well, recreate it…can’t!…a “Mirage”…no, no that’s not really there…its way way over that bend, do you really believe that?
flem34 devinsidney All of this would also be true with a square earth with human inhabitants only on one side. So, as a square earther, I agree with you until a point. The Earth has 6 sides, not just one.
Okay…again this was not a real debate but a hypothetical one…let’s not waste time arguing a point neither of us agree on…but I will absolutely continue to humor it if you wish?
flem34 devinsidney They added 2 inches to the bridge? The length or the height?
I don’t understand what you are asking about measuring the distance of the sun.
This video is silly. It has a skull avatar at the bottom right corner and the claims it posits are ridiculous and the grammar us horrendous. Why would something like this come across as educational or legitimate to you? I fear it is because you have no idea what real science looks like. And I won’t hold that against you as you don’t know what you don’t know.
Okay..you are focused on the skull avatar and discrediting it due to that…? You speak of grammar and type “us horrendous”…? I’m Not the type to usually point out grammatical mistakes because I know mine is not the best but if you are going to criticize then be sure your’s is perfect! You say I don’t know or “have no idea” of real science…weird because I used an example of “real science” in my reference to NASA data with the light house…could you school me on real science and explain that please?
You don’t understand what I mean about distance? Ok…look at the P.I.C.T.U.R.E…NOW….THINK TO YOURSELF…HOW FAR DO I THINK THAT LIGHT SOURCE IS AWAY FROM THE CLOUDS WHILE ACCOUNTING FOR THE EFFECTS IT HAS ON THE ANGLES OF THE RAYS OF LIGHT SHOWING THROUGH! Sorry, thought that was clear. Does it look like to you that the light source is close or very very far away…keep in mind the drastic differences in angles of the Rays of light. That only could be achieved with a light source that is very close…come on, you know this already. You are smart, I know you can figure this one out. Draw me an illustration of where you think it is…or I can do it for you if you are still confused on the question at hand.
flem34 read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
they have nothing to do with distance its atmospheric refraction
As far as the bridge…let’s just do this for the sake of argument. Since you are so educated in physics and mathematics, how about you tell me how much of an adjustment for curvature should be made to a 24mile long bridge? Be as specific as you would like…and how about this as well…do the numbers for 2 inches, length and height while you are at it….maybe it will make sense once you explain it (and I mean that in the most humble of ways).
Can you explain the mirage I mentioned as well? I’m really looking for answers here. I’m not being ignorant in my mind because I have admitted what I don’t know and I am providing you with things to prove your case…you haven’t done much of that in my eyes. You seem to be dodging the visual evidence I have provided to support my case, and instead have decided to pick at my unverified knowledge (key word “unverified”) and the integrity of a video due to an avatar!? So I guess we can’t take Walt Disney (the man) seriously about any topic other than cartoons? Just answer the questions without attempting to appear superior in knowledge and trying to use that to discredit everything. If you are so sure and it’s so much fact you have with science, physics and numbers, then prove each point wrong. Let’s now test what YOU KNOW and what you DON’T…NO MORE DODGING!
flem34
temperature inversions are so common they happen once or twice a week in most areas temperature inversions are when the air temperature rises, not falls from fround level up to a inversion layer ..often in my area where i fly its about 1500 fdeet the inversion of the temperature causes refraction of light making distant objects appear to be “lifted’ you are actualy seeing farther along the curve because the light is being bent around the curve by the temperature inversion
now because the temperature inversion only really affects soaring pilots you will only know when its in effect by getting an aviation weather report but 1 for soaring (glider or sailplane pilots) the reason it afects soaring is it affects wether thermals can form above or below the inversion layer
temperature inversions are also typicaly slightly hazy below the layer as smog and polution and dust othd other haze sources are trapped beneath the inversion layer
devinsidney flem34 flat earthers are not looking for evidence that makes sense they are looking for nonsense that feeds a paranoid delusion
check out the brand new site http://www.flatearthdebunked.com we will examine the psychology behind this irrational belief as part of our long ranged plans to debunk this bunk
devinsidney flem34 you cant replicate a mirrage..an atmospheric phenomenon in a enclosed lab however if you know the aviation weather foerecast you can accurately preduict when it will ocur
its called a temmperatture inversion
just cause flat earthers are too dumb to understand science doesnt make science wrong it just makes you stupid
Well thats a constructive response well done…that was sarcasm by the way
Earf is flat. Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Well your top ten are all so full of holes, and all bullshit- You look out through your asshole and snapshot a photo of the earth, like the so called as(s)tronauts did through a round window, to give us, a PHOTO-SHOPPED picture, of “earth, from space. by the Way that Same NASA is now saying and telling us the earth is actually more pear shaped, so the old marble earth photos were in fact, Photo-shopped wrong I guess?
Take your marble/ball earth and shove it up your ball ass! Thanks for your lies about PROOF- ASSHOLE!
DownIntheHolden Why so angry? Why is this so important for you to get wrong? Your interest in science appears to be dwarfed by your interest in antagonism.
Your homework is to explain how Euler’s method is used to solve ordinary differential equations.
Perhaps you should post on other science-base boards. Maybe one how a car engine works. You can touch and hold and see a car engine with your own eyes. Perhaps you can argue some of the principles of internal combustion. You are well-versed in thermal dynamics right? Or are you saying it is flat too?
I will try and debate every figure but I’m kinda new to this so may need time to understand each. Not here to argue but instead to make sense of what we know and think we know. But figure 4 also is not a great example in my mind because again you assume figures on flat earth have an infinite view. There is a reason we cant see all the stars and its not necessary because the earth is round. At night there are a lot of factors to account for that your figure does not take into consideration like cloud cover. There are nights you go out and you can’t see a single star and there are other nights where you can see a lot. I look at the stars a lot and i notice sometimes unless i really focus in an area I don’t even realize a star is there because the other stars are a lot brighter. Consider this as well the earth is supposedly orbiting the sun and moving really really fast. Now consider that it takes a year to do one orbit. Now consider that on jan 1 we are facing the earth at noon and for ease of understanding this example, lets say on Jan 1 the sun facing side is east and the night side is west. Now consider 6months later we literally have to do the complete opposite because we will be exactly half way around the sun putting the sun facing side pointing west and the east facing side night. Now, explain to me how we see the same stars? we are facing in a completely different direction when looking at the stars in the galaxy…are you saying our orbit with the speed factor and the orbit of stars and galaxies and also accounting for their relevant speeds, that we are in literally perfect harmony? I hope my example made sense.
Example 2 you use a ship as an example…here is a video that proves or at least shows otherwise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObxiUMosj7o Either they are wrong about how much the earth curves or its flat…why are we pretending we don’t understand the principles of how water works…water will ALWAYS level itself. If you took a glass with a flat bottom and poured it half way full with water, you would see that water level in a straight line. if you took the same glass and rounded out the bottom middle to give yourself a half circle you wouldn’t see the water conform to that circle…instead what it will do is fill in the uneven area and flatted out at the top like this example below.
flem34 Please elaborate on “water will always level itself?” Relative to what forces? How much gravity? Under what type of atmospheric pressure? Under what temperature? How much do you know about fluid dynamics? Viscosity? Density? Conservation laws? Compressible vs incompressible flow? Inviscid vs Newtonian and no-Newtonian fluids? Laminar vs turbulent flow. Benroulli’s equation? Euler equations? Darcy’s law.
You are missing the Earth’s gravity in the above diagrams. That is the overwhelming force being applied on the water.
Why should the water conform to the circle under “normal” conditions? Say, for instance, your living room? Are you saying that the curve in the glass has equal gravity to that of the Earth? The water doesn’t conform to a circle in a glass, therefore an ocean of water won’t conform to the curve of the Earth? Really?
number 8 is a bad example because you are using something as an example that clearly isn’t understood entirely. If i have to manually change my clocks twice a year then that tells me something is not understood in its normal format so an adjustment has to be made. We don’t have to make adjustments to addition because it always works…we fully understand math…2+2 will always equal 4…you don’t hear anyone saying “2+2 equals 4 accept twice a year where the value of 2 is really only 1.5 so we have to add an extra 1 to make up the difference”. When you have to make adjustments that tells me you either don’t fully understand this entirely or you are trying to make sense of something with a little white out and eraser. Not saying this throws time zones out the window but you cant use something that’s not fully understood to back your case. And please don’t say they understand it because if they did there would be no need for an adjustment twice a year. Adjustment: small alteration or movement made to achieve a DESIRED fit, appearance, or result. When ppl argue flat earth they don’t allow for this…there is no adjustment in flat earth that would be considered “OK” it would be the absolute death of any conversation or debate…yet Round earth is full of it. Again, not saying its not valid or that it is…just not a good example if you are trying to nail the coffin shut using plywood.
flem34 Changing clocks for daylight savings time and back is FULLY understood and it is not a scientific concept. It’s simply a human adjustment. Instead of having sunlight at 5am, we are adjusting the clocks to have it start at 6am. Instead of night falling at 8pm, it then falls at 9pm. In the fall we will put the clocks back to where it is supposed to be: 1 hour ahead and 1 hour back = 0 hours change in the year, right? We are adjusting the clocks to be more in line with our sleep and awake patterns. We could move the clock any arbitrary amount. We could move the clock ahead by 4 hours instead and then pull it back 4 hours. It doesn’t change the celestial movements. Near the equator (the tropics) daylight savings time isn’t used because their days and nights remain roughly the same at 12 hours each. Those of use nearer to either pole will see hours of daylight change with seasons because our axis is tilted. Hence, in the beginning of the summer, we have 16 hours of daylight to 8 hours of night. It is the reverse at the beginning of the winter.
I am explaining too much. This is all you need to know. Between New Year’s Day 2014 and New Years’s Day 2015 you set your clock ahead by 1 hour and then back 1 hour. 1 hour – 1 hour = 0. A net difference of 0 hours. No adjustment made. You do that every year. Always 0 hours changed. You probably change your watch or clock by a minute or two all the time because your clock might run slow or fast. Doing so does not change the Earth’s day. It might change your day. You might go to bed 1 minute earlier, but the next day you might buy a new watch and it is set 2 minutes later. Now you are going to bed according to that watch, yet the Earth still rotates the same.
This devinsidney guy is a fuckin’ joke. He’s commented on almost every contradictory comment in this thread. He’s got nothing better to do with his time then keep watch on this page. I’m not saying he’s a shill, but this is exactly how shills act. Don’t even waste your time reading or responding to his comments. They’ll just go on and on.
Yeah, it seems that way. It doesn’t bother me though…if anything it just helps provide more evidence. Not once has the Devinsidney said anything to debunk any of the evidence I provided. They speak of education and knowledge yet has failed at actually using that knowledge to educationally disprove anything I have posted. Some of my post weren’t the best but I admit to being new to this possibility of a flat earth.
Please explain why: “The Mathematics ‘Add’ Up” against your #2 ‘theory’ ? Take your binoculars to the beach and when you see a ship fade over the horizon, focus your binoculars on it, and you will still be able to see the ‘entire’ ship, and will be able to follow it for some time. Can binoculars really see around the curve of the earth?
No, but according to science, the earth has a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile which means something you know to be 30 miles away, would be 600 feet below the horizon, and even with binoculars should not be visible. So, assuming science isn’t trying to deceive us once again, please explain this: Case in Point: The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.
No one on here is going to attempt to debate this because they cannot. These are cold hard facts being put to the test in front of our eyes…no billion dollar telescopes or satellites (that only a hand full of scientist have access to), no 12 chalk board long equations to compute, and no convenient excuses (yet). This is one of two things…it’s one, either the wrong equation as to the extent of the earth’s curvature (which helps prove my point that not everything in science is FACT), or the Earth has no curve at all thus leading to this lie we have been living. They have no math to account for almost 1000feet. NOW, what WILL happen is they will come up with some reason like a “mirage” or make up some new effect we are experiencing to explain what their math cannot. They LOVE to throw education and experience of math and physics around when it is convenient, but now, when it’s really time to use that knowledge, all we hear is silence…you can’t use those things to back your claims ignorantly and then silently abandon the conversation when it’s time to “practice what you preach”.
ThadeusWord Really? Your maths is way off. 8 inches per mile. 8 x 30 is 240 inches, or 20 feet. NOT anywhere near 600 feet. And as for your binoculars thing. I’m guessing you live nowhere near the sea, don’t have a decent pair of binoculars or have never watched a ship sail over the horizon. I live on the coast, in the middle of the solent, one of the world’s busiest shipping canals and can categorically say that ships do indeed sail over the horizon and ‘disappear’ from the bottom up. Why do you think that hundreds of years ago the ships lookouts were stationed in the crows nest? Or why modern day warships mount their radar at the top of the ship? I’ll give you a clue. In both instances it means they can ‘see’ further.
Please do more research before professing to know the maths better than someone else. Because, as in this case, if you do not, you just look very foolish and gullible.
What about being able to travel round it in a straight line and returning to your starting point without falling off?
@wolfiness hey Try and check out some videos regarding flight times and paths on flat earth vs round earth. It will be easier if looked it up on your own than for me to try and explain it all in one post. But ask yourself this. If we are spinning at almost 1000mph westbound, why do we have the same flight times from the east coast to the west coast as we do the west coast to the east coast? The spin of the earth should make traveling against this 1000mph spin insanely difficult and we should see drastic differences in flight time…yet NOTHING!
flem34 I looked it up, found videos by hysterical and hate-fuelled FE people vs. calm and rational scientists, and the science made a lot more sense to me than all the unexplaining of all the gazillion other obvious things showing the roundness of the earth that FEs have to try with tenuous conspiracy theories and simplistic misunderstandings of physics in order to try to make it flat.
I also note that you didn’t answer my question, merely tried to change the subject. Have you got an answer?
@wolfiness, sorry I thought the videos would answer your question but some how you must have missed the info. So first let’s look at one key fact and flaw in your original question…there are NO FLIGHTS that travel completely around the world so I can’t see where you might get the proof for your claim. Secondly, look at a flight from Australia to South America…look at the flight path on a round map and a flight path on the flat map and tell me which of the two makes SENSE to you. If you can be man or woman enough to come back to me and say you have a “GAZILLION” reasons after comparing those two then I guess that settles it…but I know there are no rationale human being out there that would say that the round earth flight paths, make more sense than flat earth…I believe in you, open your mind to logic :). Btw they are more facts about flight paths than just this example…I will share those too if you would like more info.
flem34 Firstly, nowhere in this video or any of your reasoning are you taking into account economics. All businesses need to run to economy, flight operators will not run direct flights if there isn’t enough demand for them. As for the flight times. Are you freakin kidding me? This is Newtonian physics. Hardly anything new. Hardly anything difficult.
Planes fly through the atmosphere, not outer space. The atmosphere spins with the Earth. The only reason flying east to west and flying west to east will make any difference in time would be because of the coriolis effect. Even then, flights have a specified take off time and a specified landing time. The pilots, being clever people try to compensate for wind direction, which can affect the duration of the flight, by using, what is technically known as, THE THROTTLE. This piece of apparatus allows them to control how much fuel gets burnt in the engines and therefore controls their AIR SPEED. Air speed is how fast through the air a plane goes. When you vector air speed and air direction you get ground speed which you can then use to calculate flight times.
Sheesh! Do I really need to explain this to somebody who has access to the internet?
@flem34 We don’t even have to get into flight paths, people have sailed around the world in boats. What according to FE are the eastermnost and westernmost parts of the earth, incidentally?
Wolfiness we can also sail “around” the earth on a flat map. The reason flights paths are key is because on a globe and flat map the greatest distances between masses of land are in the “southern hemi” or outer edges (on flat). And again, flights are used as an example because it can make the most sense as to why the flight paths chosen are not what they appear (they make a great deal of sense on a flat map ALL OF THEM). If it was such a simple answer why not just prove it and shut everyone up. Let a leading group of FE’ers go to Antarctica to prove their theory or disprove it in your case? Why are FE’ers not allowed to exercise the ability to prove a theory without restraint? Because it is “dangerous”? When have they ever stopped you from climbing Mt. Everest? When have they ever stopped you from diving to the deepest depths of the Oceans? But Antarctica is too “Unsafe”? Why is Antarctica the only piece of land not solely owned by one Country? To preserve it for Scientist? We show on a daily basis we have zero concerns regarding the preservation of Earth so why Antarctica? Oil shortages, and mining alone would give huge companies enough reason to own the land. Why are you meant by Military forces from around World? Truly think about that one…can you agree something sounds fishy?
slymonster flem34 I totally understand economics and supply and demand…so understanding that, if you are saying a flight has zero demand, then why offer it (or appear to offer it)? And why can you not even begin to start booking the flight? Correct me if I am wrong but the only way to know that a flight you are ADVERTISING has no demand, would be by the number of bookings you have confirmed…right? How can you know a flight won’t be in demand if you don’t allow people to book it? I have booked flights before and then had the Air Line come back and cancel it due to lack of tickets sold…but I BOOKED it. So again I ask you, why offer a flight you know has zero demand? McDonald’s does no offer a 7 patty burger because there is no demand for it…so I ask you again, why offer a flight no one can physically book?
ahhhh Coriolis Effect…so then you admit the flight times should indeed be VERY different? Why are they not? oh yeah that throttle thing you mentioned! Those pilots…clever people indeed! Sorry but I just don’t get how this makes sense without some invisible force we can’t detect causing some kind of phenomenon (“we” as in the everyday people). Cannon ball tests have been done to try and prove this effect but they all come back the same…LITERALLY, the same. I mean they even shot them straight in the air and in many instances the cannon ball fell right back into the nozzle it was shot from. There were no trajectory or distance changes regardless of which cardinal direction the cannon balls were fired in…weird!! Also, consider in this experiment that the “THROTTLE” is the actual firing of the cannon ball and the “AIR SPEED” is how fast its traveling through the air. Being as though they are all using the same amount of throttle and are identical to each other we should see a difference if this force is exerting its will as you suggest in a certain direction…weird!!. If the Earth is spinning and so is the atmosphere, us, the land, all are spinning with it how can propelling against or with the force require no additional energy or less energy what so ever? Nothing in life makes sense to explain this but Science is notorious for taking something and MAKING it work. Newton’s Law of Gravity is a prime example of this in action. Without appearing to change subject, Newton’s Law of Gravity failed in equations used on planets like Mercury. So what did they do? Created something new and so Kepler’s laws of planetary motion was created. When something doesn’t work or make sense, they make up something new to make it make sense…thus the never ending cycle.
At least I can say I don’t understand something, at least I don’t attempt to use invisible forces to explain my thoughts, at least my observations are based on “observations” and not theories that rely on assumptions and created formulas to make the entire thing true or false. Funny how as kids we believe ALL the time in things we have never seen, detected, or felt…and as adults we don’t appear to have changed much. When mom said Santa was real and I needed to go to sleep or he wouldn’t come I believed that. Yeah I had a few questions but she answered my unease with some of the most simplistic of responses and I went right along with it. The bed time stories are just more elaborate now and are accompanied by insanely large numbers that usually are in the trillions to confuse the shit out of people. Life itself is a great example of the constant manipulation we are under…this is not even about if the Earth is round or Flat (for me)…I honestly don’t care…it’s about the lies associated with it. Do your own homework on REAL LIFE. You will start to see the global manipulation we have been under from what we eat, to why we are at war, to why we are in debt as a society, to what the leading cause of global warming is, etc. Come back from all of that and tell me you still believe this dumb shit they rattle off. Wolfiness/slymonster, you two are not dumb and neither is anyone else on this page. We cannot be at fault for the calculated lies and actions of a few that have brain washed us all. The things I believe I KNOW are because I don’t need to rely on others to prove them. Everything, EVERYTHING you know about the above was feed to you. You never personally observed it, you never touched it, and you damn sure never felt it. The problem is that for so long we have thought of these people to have merit and be creditable sources, so quite naturally we don’t question the material nor its content. It very important to know that there are elements of FE that I have a hard time accepting because FE’s don’t know it all either. But what I do know is that this story has holes in it…deliberate ones. Sorry, didn’t mean to run on there but a key point to this is the ability to think clearly on your own and we don’t do that enough as people.
It seems very obvious to me that all people everywhere are fed a significant quantity of lies and errors, though their content may vary, because I don’t think there’s one overarching conspiracy. That doesn’t mean EVERYTHING anyone’s ever taught you is bull. And we are all, including the liars, manipulated by more subtle unconscious forces. Everyone is influenced by things inside and outside themselves and has to make their own sense of it. Science isn’t the culprit. Science is a method for arriving at as much objective truth as possible, not an unquestionable authority. It relies on testable observations and not assumption, it questions itself and accepts when it doesn’t know something yet and admits when it gets things wrong. If it’s not doing that, it’s not science.
I was just saying elsewhere in a different context that I don’t have the experience or expertise to prove the existence of most things I take as fact. I judge things based on my experience, my understanding of the evidence, probability, consistency, the belief that I am competent and sane and yes, also the judgement, usually in consensus, of people who I trust and respect and who make sense to me. I would have to be *very* sure I was fully competent and sane if personal experience was going to be my only measure of truth, and I can’t see how anyone can function at all without relying on secondary evidence. But all of this, unless you are someone who is capable of understanding everything, is indeed fallible and a matter of faith up to a point. I *believe* the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a spheroid Earth and, contrary to you, that it is the flat Earth theory that involves too many inconsistencies and requires infinite explanations to make it compatible with my perceived reality. But your mileage clearly varies from mine.
I’m afraid not everyone believed in Santa Claus or fairy tales as a child though. I always assumed they were a fantasy we were all pretending was true. I still think I’m right about that.
W.
Wolfiness Very well written I must say. And with that acknowledgement I must also admit to my inadvertent hypocrisy. It obviously was not my intention but I can see the flaw in some of my logic based off this. I pride myself on being level headed and fair but I feel my emotions sometimes get the better of me. Thank you for serving me a slice of humble pie 🙂 *NO SARCASM AT ALL!*
You are correct in your analysis of what Science TRULY is. My recent encounters with those who dismiss the evidence of FE is usually that “Science can’t be wrong and that everything currently known is fact, no debate” and history has shown us that this is not inherently true nor is it inherently false but it’s CERTAINLY debatable (Which is why I referenced Newton’s Law of Gravity). So I have taken a more sensitive approach and I can admit I am wrong for that. I truly love Science believe it or not. But what I am uncovering is that our most honest and sacred aspects of life are being overrun with corruption and lies. That leads me to question how much of what I have learned is real Science, and how much is part of a sinister agenda. Unfortunately, in order to think from this side of the fence, one MUST assume it’s all a lie to begin. You then can use the facts of Science, politics and observations to bring you back to the supposed reality. It happens for me a lot…as I stated, “there are elements of FE that I have a hard time accepting” and refuse to accept because I do not believe the claims match what I believe to be true through the 3 mentioned means above. Everything is not a lie and everything is not a conspiracy…I get that totally. However, things I once thought to be impossible I see being covered up and hidden with lies and deception from the public, like global warming. I once looked at this as one of the most noble of causes for Man to fight and stand against but recent facts have shown me that this is an EXTREMELY corrupt operation and we have been fed a 100% lie as to the leading cause of our current global state. This leads me to question more of my reality and look for more of that “hidden truth”. If I am wrong so be it. I don’t want to be right about this at all to be honest but I can’t afford to sit back and just assume I am without asking the tough questions.
When I first read of how Antarctica is treated on a global scale, that was my first red flag. Then I kept digging and found more and more. Maybe it just seems that way but the easiest thing for our Governments to do is squash it, right? Wouldn’t you want to avoid any kind of public uprising of Government lies and corruption? I would, especially when the answer is nothing more than a flight over the sea to Antarctica and the ability to explore the entire landscape via helicopter. It’s the absolute key to FE theory, without it the whole damn thing falls apart and then BAMMMM “theory busted, now get back to real life you crazy FE’ers”. So for me, the fact they won’t let this be proven by anyone other than Scientist, it’s on constant lock down by Military forces from around the World, tells me SOMETHING is being hidden. It might not even be that the Earth is flat…it could be totally unrelated…but I truly believe SOMETHING is up in Antarctica and I feel it’s something big beyond what we currently KNOW.
@flem34 Thank you for your reply. It’s rare to be able to disagree with someone over the internet and find you respect them more at the end than you did at the beginning 🙂
I think if a flight over Antarctica proved FE wrong most of its advocates would just shift the goalposts and find a way of disbelieving or dismissing it and demand some further proof, because that is what they have tried to do to all the other more than adequate evidence that already exists to proved FE wrong. At some point you have to draw the line and stop humouring people and realise that you will never convince them because their belief is immune to facts.
Wolfiness flem34 immune to facts… great term
but there are trans antarctic flight routes, just not often used for safety reasons.
there are also 2 airfields at the south pole 1 at the geographic pole where there is a ‘visitors center’ of sorts and 1 nearby at a huge science center
i have personally spoken to a pilot that flew c110’s fitted with skis on the landing gear so it could land on an ice landing strip
search youtube for tour of south pole and you will see many videos
ofcourse flat earthers claim that just cause its the geographic center ..the south pole we rotate on doesnt prove theres a south pole there and they claim its just a stick in the ground with a sign on it
ofcourse not 1 would ever go and see for themselves
it costs 10-17 grand to take the trip, but hey they are making that much selling books and pushing this ridiculous “theory” any one of them can prove how wrong they are but not 1 is willing to they claim that theres a secret army guarding the poles
and i knew someone who had just been to the pole (several months ago) showed them photos and ofcourse they accused her of being a nasa or mason agent and faking them.
as you say they are immune to facts and allergic to anything that could provide proof
flem34 slymonster Ermmm. No. The coriolis affect would make a LITTLE difference. Not a large one. Maybe you should research this a little more. As for the cannonball tests, all I can say is pah! Show me the evidence for this. Or is this just another urban myth? Like so much of your pseudo science.
There has very recently been a circumnavigation of the antarctic. Maybe you should look it up. It would have been impossible for that particular vessel to have circumnavigated a FE antarctica in the time it actually took.
As for these non-stop flights that the narrator ‘doesn’t think ever take off’. We have already heard from one business traveller who has caught these flights on more than one occasion.
And why do you insist that the flight paths make more sense on a flat earth? Why not look into ships courses? All it is is sheer coincidence because of the demand for flights.
I like the bit you say about never personally observing something. So you observed these cannonball tests did you?
Hypocrite I yell.
I have observed many things that go against the doctrine of FE theory. Ships sailing over the horizon, being able to see further the higher I climb. The horizon dropping below eye level. The moon being in front of the sun. The stars tracking across the sky and rotating around Polaris. All of which FE people tell me is untrue.
I will always believe my own eyes before some pseudo science nonsense.
And anyone can visit Antarctica as a tourist if they have the money. You can also apply for a job there. Yes it is a very dangerous place. Very cold, very windy. Even trained personnel have been known to lose fingers and toes through having accidents less than a hundred metres from their permanent bases.
Wolfiness flem34 there was 1 flight that traveled completely arond the world nonstop but there have been a number that have done it with ariel refueling
Wolfiness because the entire atmospheres spinning with you? gee why is that so easy to explain
oh yea
im a pilot and pilots have to understand the atmosphere they fly through
soaringeagle. You seem to have mistaken me for a FE advocate…?
Wolfiness srry 1st time using this clicked the wrong reply thought i was replying to flem i think
but hey started a site http://www.flatearthdebunked.com just last week already getting some great posts you should join us
so we spin on an axis at 1,000 mph (yet feel nothing) while rapidly revolving around a stationary sun (yet we observe it move through the sky just like the moon) while the solar system travels around the Milky Way at 500,000 mph (yet the stars are “fixed”) hmmm.
the moon is 1/4 the size of Earth and 1/6th the gravitational pull and 239,000 miles away and is said to move our oceans twice a day thus making the Earth “oblique” (yet all pictures are round ball and when astro-nots walk in space they only have to go up 130 miles from Earth to escape gravity) hmmm
Basic spherical geometry says Earth’s curvature is equal to miles X miles X 8 inches, yet the Nile is over 2,000 miles long which means there should be over 12 miles of elevation change up and down, same with the Mississippi, Yangtze, Amazon,etc…yet in most cases only a few feet of elevation change is recorded by GPS.
hmmm
and all “stories” come from one Source . NASA ..whose rocket engineer was Werhner Von Bruan, a NaZi V-2 rocket builder and the first NASA admin. worked for Paramount pictures and the U.S. military underwater laboratories as previous job experience. hmmmm
and it goes on…
http://aplanetruth.info/
aplanetruth I have also heard that Werners head stone has Psalm 19:1. But I have also read where it says the following: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handy work. The source of Psalm 19:1 is from Wikipedia. But I feel it’s a gov’t run site, so the information may have been slightly changed to “stars” rather than “firmament”. Since one of NASA’s first tasks was “Operation Fish Bowl” is would be quite ironic if the true epitaph included the firmament. That would be Werners confession that we truly cannot leave the Earth.
aplanetruth All stories come from NASA? What are you talking about? We knew the Earth was a globe and how we moved around in the solar system over 2,000 years ago.
And you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the ‘weightlessness’ experienced aboard the ISS or by any other astronaut. In order to escape Earths gravity a rocket has to travel thousands of miles per hour, orbiting the Earth, The ISS is not travelling fast enough to escape Earths gravity.
What is actually happening is that Earths gravity is pulling the ISS down towards the centre, while the speed of the ISS means that by the time it falls a few metres, it has travelled in a ‘straight’ line far enough for it to still be at the same height. The astronauts are actually in ‘free-fall’. They are far from weightless.
As for your statement about rivers. Do be serious. GPS uses height above sea level, which curves with the Earth. It is also dependant on the GPS satellites which orbit our glorious globe.
slymonster aplanetruth Um, no. The earth was considered a stationary disc for all of history until about 500 years ago when Copernicus declared his scientific revolution in the year 1508.
AmericanReal slymonster Um, no.
Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the globe Earth pretty accurately. And he died around 200 bc.
AmericanReal slymonster wrong
the churches teachings said that certain maps that arent recognizable as maps said that
but the polinesians were navigating by za globe earth map by 3000 years ago
also the diameter of the earth was cruedly measured around then and many cultures had accurately mapped out our movement through the galaxy’
copernicus had the 1st modern instrumentation to prove it, however prehistoric instrumentation already proved they knew about the earths movements to a high degree of accuracy
soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster Then how do you account for the flat earth map of 1892
AmericanReal soaringeagle slymonster
It’s not a flat earth map, it’s a projection from a sphere. Just like every other map of globe earth. In case you haven’t noticed, all maps tend to be a flat representation from a certain angle, usually centred on the equator.
A map centred around the North pole to represent a globe earth on a flat piece of paper is what the 1892 map shows.
AmericanReal soaringeagle slymonster Exactly like he said a flat earth map is just a flat map a piece of paper all maps are flat otherwise it would be called globes
aplanetruth obviosly you are completely unaware how you sense motion
hmmm
maybe your tinfoil hat needs adjusting
hmmm
aplanetruth I don’t have time to debunk all of your comments so I recommend studding science rather than have these ideas bounce around the echo chamber that is your mind.
I will debunk the hardest to explain of your comments. You don’t escape the earths gravity at 130mi out. The moon itself is affected by the earths gravity.Escaping the Earth’s gravity (while remaining in orbit) is a question of altitude and velocity. Essentially, every object that orbits the earth, from an astronaut to the moon, is continually falling “down” to the earth. There voracity(the speed at which they move around the earth) is so great that they “miss” the atmosphere and continue around the earth.
The rest should be common sense, but that one is a bit tricky. Always remember, Everything is Relative!
aplanetruth motion, is detected in 2 ways, or to be exact, its detected in 1 verified in another
when you jump, spin, run, whatever you cause the fluid in your inner ear to move around which moves tiny hair like receptors and that detects CHANGES IN MOTION note i did not say motion, but changes in motion.. when your moving at 1000 mph and its completely smooth, steady, unchanging there is no way to detect it
now on to verification, sight
pilots withoit proper instrumentation (that tells you your orientation to the ground) cannot lose sight of the ground by flying into clouds, at night, or under poor visibility, because as your changes in motion are detected when you turn, hut turbulance, speed up or slow down your eyes cannot verify it so you get confused ..especialy if your moving your head around looking outside the cockpit, you get whats called vertigo (literally translates to “wich way is up”)
so to put this all together , when you can’t sense changes in motion you only have sight to see motion and verify it, the “movement of the sun moon and stars’ wich isn’t them moving, but us
when you drive down a highway watching the trees and buildimgs go by do you assume the trees and buildings are moving? no you ar its the same you are on a planet spinning observing its motion.
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/ if you want the real truth, not paranoid delusions i suggest you start there
aplanetruth Where do I start. GPS would not exist if it wasn’t for the geosynchronous satellites in orbit around our globe Earth. GPS measures attitude as height above sea level, which curves with the Earth. So you really cannot expect much deviation to the height of a river, unless it’s a fast flowing one, flowing down the side of a mountain or over a waterfall.
As for the moon causing tides. Yes pictures will look circular. A tide is generally only up to about 30 feet max, and only against some particularly shaped land masses. Do you really expect to distinguish this from a photo taken 1000,s of miles away?
we started http://www.flatearthdebunked.com just last week we would love your help with debunking this crap
it is actually easier to believe the earth is flat rather than a sphere. if you believe the earth is a sphere then you have to believe in the magical THEORY of gravity.
RustyShackleford5 to disbelieve in gravity you have to disbelieve in your own weight and believe you can jump over the moon
but to believe in a flat earth you also need to move the sun, shrink it and find a force besides your massive ego that would cause an entire universe to revolve around our tiny insignificant speck of a planet..
if you can explain what force would cause the universe to revolve around us i’ll give up my belief in gravity toss you off a tall building and watch you float off into space
now that would be magic
Wrong, Gravity has never been proven. The so called proof, which has never been completed, is predicated on the assumption that you’re on a sphere. No curve, no ball. Earth is flat. The end.
wgenske “Gravity has never been proven” Oh dear god, i spit my water all over the screen. How can you type such a dumb thing without breaking some fingers on your keyboard ?
rhooManu wgenske you must not see all the idiotic things flat earthers claim on youtube
you know since gravity cant exist on a flat earth the tides cant be caused by gravity instead by wind and evapporation
if you point out that its on an exact schedule with the moon they say the moons gravity cant affect anything cause the moons a hologram
yes it requires incredible stupidity to believe the earth is flat
rhooManu wgenske There are apparently people who believe that their own ignorance in a given field means that nothing at all is known there.
Regarding gravity, I would suggest that a very good start might be to look into the work of Henry Cavendish, and what he did around 1797-98.
And once you get there, note that nothing Cavendish did is dependent upon the Earth being a sphere. But his work winds up providing very, very strong evidence that Isaac Newton got it right, which in turn means that the Earth basically HAS to be essentially spherical.
wgenske you moron we are on a sphere
flat earth is impossible
i got a suggestion
if you are so certain the earth is flat and gravity doesnt exist, jump off the tallest building you can find
if you hang there in mid air then your right
when you splatter on the ground that is pproof you are wrong
gravity is proven and gravity proves the earth cannot be flat without collapsing into a ball
the end
RustyShackleford5 besides gravity affects every mass in the universe and by observing gravities affects on nearby masses we have discovered those unseen masses
when you see a tiny wobble in a planet or star you know some force is acting on it and you can calculate the mas distance and speed of that object then look and find it right where gravitational pull says it would be
also to disbelieve in gravity you have to believe the moons a hologram cause the moons gravity affects tides
so if gravity doesnt exist it has to be wind and evaporation
but since its on an exact schedule with the on the moon has to be a hologram so it cant be causing the tides
this is exactly how flat earthers think in order to presserve what is essentialy a paranoid delusion, not a theory
RustyShackleford5 What a ridiculous statement. So on a ‘Flat Earth’ when you throw a ball upwards, what makes it change direction and return it back to your flat Earth?
‘Magical’ theory of gravity? There is nothing ‘magical’ about it. It is well understood.
Please explain how, if gravity doesn’t exist, you are able to walk without flying off the surface of your flat Earth.
Seriously, please explain that. I guarantee I will rip apart whatever speculation you can think of, that does not involve gravity.
slymonster RustyShackleford5 Density. How does a helium filled balloon float upwards? Does gravity have no effect on the balloon? How do you explain this? Gravity is a construct that only exists in your mind. It has NEVER been proven, Ever. It cannot be proven.
wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 Yes gravity has an effect on a helium filled balloon. The denser air gets pulled towards the Earth, at a greater rate than the helium balloon, forcing itself below the balloon. So the helium balloon floats upwards, much like a boat floats on the sea, DUE to gravity.
As for not being able to prove gravity exists: If I drop a hammer, it will fall to the floor. If I drop it 100 times, it will fall to the floor. 1000 times, 1,000,000 times, the result would be the same. Why is this not proof enough?
slymonster wgenske RustyShackleford5 I would suggest that the law of gravity has never been proven, and is was ever only needed in order to get everything on earth to stick to it, as a result of the earth spinning around its own axis at over 1000 mph (at the equator). But this theory falls apart as you move north or south, away from the equator, and the “globe” experiences slower rotation. At the poles, your rotation would be negligible compared to the rotation at the equator. (Agreed?). What then does the theory of gravity have to say about this? Would you not be squashed by your now-much-greater-weight? I find this very hard to reconcile. But I know you will correct me, surely. And thank you for not adopting a sarcastic or offensive tone. I find it most disturbing when people start throwing insults around. We’re only trying to get to the bottom of this and find the truth. Thanks again.
wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 I understand your scepticism. When you mention that at the equator we are spinning at 1000 mph it does seem a lot. However, this is still only 1 revolution per day, (0.00069444444 rpm) so the centripetal force is negligible. The law of gravity is the same at the poles and at the equator. If anything, the average person would be less than half a pound lighter at the equator than at the poles due to the centripetal force.
slymonster wgenske RustyShackleford5 Ok, now this is getting interesting. I believe you have just broken a fundamental law of physics, but let’s say you’re right, just for argument’s sake. If we are on a sphere, what is the curvature of the earth – how do we calculate that? Is there a formula we can apply? Thanks in advance.
wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 Sorry but I cannot see that I have broken any fundamental law of physics. Gravity has nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth at all. The only effect the rotation of the Earth would have on anything would be as described.
As I said, let’s put that one on the back burner, for now. Can we address the curvature issue? What kind of curvature could we expect to be able to measure on our sphere?
wgenske I’m still waiting to know what fundamental laws of physics I have broken.
I’m guessing you either don’t know or just put that up to trick people reading the post.
slymonster wgenske Very simple to answer. You know about centripetal force. If you are on a carousel, at the edge of the carousel, you will be spinning faster at the edge, compared to at the centre. And you can feel this effect. As you move closer to the outer edge, you will feel more centripetal force acting on your body. The law is simple. The faster you spin, the more force is acting on you. This is why gravity was invented. It was to keep the waters from spinning off the earth while revolving around it’s own axis at over 1000mph at the equator. But as you move either north or south on your spinning ball, your centripetal force must diminish, just as it would if you were on a spinning carousel. The closer you happen to be to the axis or centre point, the less centripetal force will be acting upon you. If gravity is the balancing force allowing all of the earths oceans, and indeed anything that is not fixed to the ball, to overcome the centripetal forces of the spinning earth and stay stuck to the ball, then gravity must somehow magically adjust itself in strength the further you move away from the equator.
Now, I have a feeling we’re not going to agree on this particular point. So, let’s make this really simple. Please show me the curvature of the earth. Does anyone dispute this formula?
The curvature of the earth in inches = 8 inches x miles x miles
At 40 miles, therefore, we get 40 x 40 x 8 = 12,800 inches which is equal to approximately 1,067 feet. And yet we can see entire skylines from even further than that. Surely on a ball earth, ships would not be able to see light from a light house which is that distance, and yet, there are literally hundreds of examples of lighthouses that can be seen from even greater distances. It makes no sense. There is no curvature, therefore not a ball.
wgenske slymonster You are so wrong on this point. If the carousel was spinning at 1 revolution per day, how much centripetal force do you think you would feel? Probably none, it would be too little to sense. That is the same as the Earth. 1 Revolution per day. It doesn’t matter how fast that is, because the vector speed is almost a straight line.
It takes you so long to go from the equator to the poles that there is no way of noticing this change in centripetal force, which again id 1 revolution per day. Again, it’s got nothing to do with speed. Please look up the definition of centripetal force.
And in any case, gravity would not have to adjust at all. I really cannot understand why you would think it should
So in summery, it is your poor science which falls down. I have broken no laws of physics as I know the true definition of the forces you think I have contradicted..
slymonster wgenske Again, put the argument to bed, show me some curvature, please. It’s that easy. But you can’t, so you throw your pseudo-science around instead. If the earth os a ball, it should have some curvature. You’ve never seen it. Why? No curvature. Flat. Completely.
wgenske slymonster I have seen it. With my own eyes. By climbing a mountain I can see it. I can see further. The horizon drops below eye level. I see the stars transit the sky. I see different stars in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere, they also go in a different direction.
Just because you cannot join the dots does not mean my evidence is nonsense. It is your poor science that is nonsense.
slymonster wgenske I see we’re simply not going to arrive at an agreement, so I wish you the best with your endeavours, whatever they may be. It’s been fun, but not necessarily productive. I wish you all the best.
wgenske slymonster Feeling beaten already? Never mind. I suggest you use your own eyes instead of listening to idiots on Youtube.
Beaten? How’s that? You have a ball with no curve. That’s hilarious. I hint he who has been beaten is you, good sir. The end.
Show curvature. Then, you win. Until then, you’ve lost. The end.
wgenske i showed u curvature
wgenske slymonster
Yes, I would dispute that formula. You have not taken into account the height of the observer.
The correct formula that you need is:
x+y + SQRT(H SQR + 2Hr) + SQRT(h SQR + 2hr)
Where x+y is the line of sight of the observer plus that of the object.H is the height of observer and h is the height of the object.r is the radius of the Earth.
Ships have their bridges quite high above sea level in order to increase the distance they can see objects from. For exactly that reason. And because the Earth is curved. Lighthouses have their lights as high as possible for the same reason, so they can be seen further away, because of the curvature of the Earth.
slymonster wgenske The curvature of the earth has nothing to do with the height of the observer. The curvature is the curvature. Put this argument to be once and for all and please, please, just show me the curvature. Any will do. One example. I can show you literally hundreds of images and videos proving there is no curvature, but you have none showing even a trace of curvature. None at all. Zero. Not one inch.
wgenske slymonster You are so wrong. It has everything to do with the height of the observer. To claim that it doesn’t just shows you ignorance. If you are willing to accept that the height of the object being observed is important then you must concede that the height of the observer is also important.
Really, this is such a silly statement.
So curvature is dependent on the height of the observer. Hmmmmm. Wrong. A curve us a curve. You can’t show any, so we have to assume your argument, and sphere theory, according to science, using the scientific method – goes out of the window. Bye bye. Flat. Completely. You just have to show me visual proof of curvature, but you won’t even try, because you cannot. Flat. That’s why. The end.
wgenske a cuve is a curve right
ok lets look at this as a curve in a road
when you stand on the inside edge of the curve vrs the outside edge can you not see farther around d the curve from the outside edge
tye curves a conjstant your position along the curve determines how far you caan see along thde curve..get it
wgenske slymonster You say that the height of the observer has nothing to do with the curvature of the Earth yet concede that you have to be high up in order to see the curvature? I don’t know where to start. Can you not see how unjointed your thinking is?
Again, you have to be about 90 miles high to see the curvature, this is basic trigonometry. Yet you have already said you will not accept photographic proof from anyone who has ever been that high. Again, that shows your ignorance.
Show me photographic proof that the Earth is flat. You can’t, as you have to be at least 90 miles high and you have already discounted every photograph taken from that height.
Asking for proof you will not accept is not asking for proof.,
wgenske slymonster you moron the curve is a constant, how far you see over a curve increases with height above a curve
i think you must be a troll you cant be this dense
Show some curvature. Any curvature will do.
wgenske already showed you
wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/
basic ways to calculate curve of the earth as well as distance to horizon
soaringeagle wgenske slymonster RustyShackleford5 Please show me evidence of such curvature. You can put this whole argument to bed by simply showing us an example of the earth’s curvature. Again, no fake NASA “images” please – or any other space agency’s images, they’re not trustworthy at all.
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster RustyShackleford5 Please show us evidence for a flat earth. You can’t because it isn’t. The accepted model is that of a globe earth. The onus is on your silly ‘theory’ to disprove the current model with something more accurate.
We have known for 3000 years that the earth is a globe. You are wrong on so many levels. Your theory of a flat earth requires ignorance of the basic laws of physics. Yes LAWS, not theories.
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Here are 200 proofs for you…http://investigate-nasa.com/2015/10/21/eric-dubais-200-proofs-of-a-flat-earth/
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
Again, NASA has got nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.
I might as well blame my Grandfather for the recent global credit problems because he once bought a house, although he has been dead for 20 years.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 You really don’t think I’m going to trust a video that gets the first two points completely wrong are you?
No curve, no ball. The end.
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster RustyShackleford5
So what you are saying is that we should show you evidence which you will then say is not trustworthy? Yes, very logical. Where is your evidence?
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Are you going to stake your entire argument on NASA’s fake imagery? Are you really willing to do that? What about a simple photograph of curvature? what about the fact that you can see distant objects/skylines/lighthouses from impossible distances? The earth is so obviously flat.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
No I won’t stake everything on NASA. I will stake everything on 3000 years of knowledge, experimentation and observation though.
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 I see that we’re not going to agree, so you keep your spinning ball and have fun with it! Your glove earth is flawed at many levels. Please show me some curvature. Please. I beg you. If you can do this simply thing, you will have an argument. Otherwise, no need to reply. All balls have curvature, except yours.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Just watch the sunset. That’s proof enough. The sun doesn’t get smaller like it should with your perspective model, it goes below the horizon. Something it could never do on your flat earth. Watch the transit of the moon and stars across the sky.
Look at the moon from the southern hemisphere, it’s suddenly upside down. Again, only possible using the globe model. Impossible to explain on a flat earth model.
Climb a mountain and you can see much further, and the horizon drops BELOW eye level.
Watch ships as they sail over the horizon, then climb a tower to see the ship above the horizon again. Impossible with the flat earth perspective model.
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 The sun absolutely gets larger as it approaches you on the flat earth, and smaller as it recedes and “sets”. The transit of the moon and stars in the sky are absolute proof that we are on a plane, not a globe – how you can get star trails that are circular on a globe is beyond the realm of possibility. The trails ought to go from one side of your view to the other, not in a circular fashion.
As far as the moon is concerned, very easy to explain. If you were to put a circular object on your ceiling, mark the top portion as “north”, and walk from one side of the room to the other, you would see the circular shape just as we experience it We see the north move to the south, and vice versa as we move back to our original position.
The horizon never dips below eye level. Ever. Please show me a video where the horizon drops below eye level, while using a camera that is itself, level.
Ships never sail over the horizon, they simply get smaller in our view until they disappear due to convergence. Rowbotham’s Bedford Level Experiment showed this and this experiment has been redone, many times over, over many bodies of water, extending well beyond the supposed horizon. With the naked eye, you will see the ship “disappear”, only to be brought right back into view, using a telescope, binoculars or a zoom lens. This cannot be explained on your sphere.
The fact that you can see the Chicago skyline from over 50 miles away, is proof that we live on a flat plane.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Where do I start:
Your first point. If we measure the diameter of the sun, it does not change whatever portion ot the sky it is in. It does not get smaller as it approaches the horizon and larger overhead. IE your flat earth model does not work.
Point 2, the moon is a sphere. In your example we would have a totally different view or the moon, it wouldn’t be the same view just upside down.
Point three. I have holiday pics that disprove this. My wife is shorter than I am. When standing on a level piece of ground near sea level and ten feet apart, the horizon is above her head. At three km up a mountain, on flat land and stood 10 feet apart, the horizon is below her shoulders. Try it.
Point 4. The bottom of the ship disappears first, as expected on a globe earth, whether using a pair of binos, telescope or the naked eye. And again, if you climb a tower and use the same technique to view the boat, it will have come back into view and again disappear bottom first. This in no way is possible except on a globe earth.
Point 5. I too have seen these videos and photos. Funnily, you can never see the bottom of the buildings. Why? Because of the curvature of the Earth. Not proof of a flat Earth at all, just more proof the Earth is a globe.
Flat earthers believe in creationist/God . I’m an atheist and can’t fathom a thought that something built all this . There’s your answer . Your point 4 . I have seen the bottom of a boat with a telescope from 7 mile . If it went further out I have no doubt I would see it a lot further than that too
Austruth So you’re saying you have an absolutely different experience than anybody on this planet had, have, and will ever have ? That’s Strange. By the way, how do you know it was 7 mile ?
Yep that’s what I’m saying . I was once like everyone else but now I see
Austruth I’m really waiting for you to fly, now.
rhooManu Austruth i cant wait for spring ill be flying after years stuck on the damn ground
this is what i fly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDMXap-yNVY
Austruth see what?? see what they want you to see/?
Austruth no..you wouldnt and unless you were on a hill you could not see it at 7 miles either
but thats just it
flat earthers believe its flat because it could not possibly be flat without a creator since gravity would make it into a ball the edges pulled in to the center of mass forming a ball
now heres a simple test you can do few
1 through a telescope look at jupiter for several hours you can see it spin as it spins alot faster then earth
2 with a superzoom camera like the nikon p510- p900 (900 if you can get 1 is freaking amazing its a telescope in a camera you can photograph saturn and jupiter with)
but anyways during a full moon with a camera at a 1000 mm or higher zoom range take several photos of the moon with metering, and focus set to center point center the center of the moon in the frame on aperature priority setting and take 1 photo at each aperature click
if you are unfamiliar with photography aperatture not only adjusts how much light comes in the lens but also depth of feild
this means that at a narrow depth of feild a small area around the focal points in very sharp focus and it gets rapidly out of focus as you go deeper or shallower into the view range
a deep depth of feild has much more inj focus wile not having as sharp of focus at the focus point (examples deep depth off feilds used for landscapes where you want everryything in the entire scene reasonably in focus, and narrow depth of feilds best for portraits or anything where you want extremly detailed sharp focus of the subject and the foreground and background blurred and less distracting from the subject)
anyways srry for the long boring lesson in photography i just want you to understand why this concepts important
when you photograph the moon and step up the depth of feild click by click you go from 1 crater in focus the rest blurring out to having the entire moon center to edge inj focus
this proves the moons a ball
now flat earthers will say just cause every object in space is a ball doesn’t mean we are too
but that is simply saying “god made us special, the center of the universe and the only flat planet amongst gazillions of balls”
thbe entire reason they believe it is flat is to believe that earth is special, not just another spinning ball jn a giant universe..in other worse a plane created by some crazy dude in the sky that wanted to make earth diferent from all others out there
if your sensible enough to question if there was a creator then your sensible enough to realize that gravity binds every object in the universe and every object forms into a ball due to gravity
no creator symple physics
mass attracts mass wich gathers together into stars and planets
and we are just 1 of most likely trillions of planets in the universe and …statisticly its doubtfull we are the only 1 with life
I will take photos from my view from the water on wed morning my time . Then you can google earth it yourself . Unfortunately I don’t have the Moët to buy a telescope like what you have . I have a shitty one from the 80,s that pisses me off
Austruth Please do. Let us try to explain what YOU actually see, rather than hearsay of what others see. But please be honest about how far above the water you camera is. Well, as honest as you can be, it can be difficult to estimate. But using your own observations is better than listening to the claims of other people. In the meantime, if you can give us the google locations for where you will be and what you will be looking at, we can evaluate whether or not you should be able to see whatever you are pointing your camera at.
wgenske Will this do?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lemoncat1/2146597337
Probably not, as each side will claim optical illusion when photos contradict them. So it’s a blind alley in this argument.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 the horizon the sun setting
ok heres curvature for the simple minded explained at a level thata 6 year old can grasp
at 5’6 you see about 2.3 miles
at 10,000 feet you see 122 miles
land based radar can only see planes so far based on their altitude above ground flying under the radar you fly below where the radar can see you you can fly to within 2 niles of a radar antena by staying at 5 feet agl
9 miles by staying under 50 fet
airborn, plane to plane radar can see 250-500- 750 miles
based on the 2 p;lanes altuitudes above the curve
old sailing ships had crows nests, boddern ships have the bridge, these are set as high up as possible to see as far as possible
sailboats mount radar reflectors high up on the mast to be seen from as far as possible
all because of the curve of the earth
this explains the diference between curvature and perspective proving the earth is curved
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/law-of-perspective-vs-curved-earth-horizon/
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
Maybe you should see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyhb9PPbrLg
yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 cant watch those and keep my iq from driopping 2 points every 30 seconds
those videos are paranoid delusional conspiracy nutcases, how abot you offer published scientific evidence, physics, geometry, calculus
scientific evidence not the ramblings of insane people
yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
This map below shows where the Moon is visible from the Earth, depending on weather conditions at the time of launch:
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html?day=14&month=7&year=2014&hour=07&min=30&sec=0&n=127&ntxt=Las+Vegas&earth=0
Oh look, you could have seen the moon at ground level.
What a worthless video.
slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 not sure i get yoir point
what point were you trying to make?
soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5
Sorry, the comment was aimed at yardapekazoo68
The video he posted is trying to say that the onboard cameras couldn’t have seen the moon because of the curvature of the Earth and position of the moon at the time. The link I posted shows where you could have seen the moon from, based on a globe earth, and you could indeed have seen the moon from the surface of the Earth, never mind 70 miles above.
slymonster soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5 got ya haha just needed a lil context and a lil more in depth explanation what you were referring to haha
man everytime a flat earther says theres no such thing as satellites and the high altitude balloons are hitting the firmament dome i want to bang my head on the wall enough times to give myself brain damage just so i can try to understand how they can think that
i mean i swear i was 3 or 4 when i 1st looked up asked ‘why is that star moving” and was told cause its a satellite.. and i can’t remember a single night of looking up at the stars and not seeing at least 2..in my whole life
how is it possible these people have never looked up and seen a satellite??
do they really actually believe the stars are just painted on a dome?
1 guy today said theres no proof theres a such thing as outer space
how do these people live on this planet and know so little about their own home?
soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5
I know. It is very frustrating. They seem happy to just accept facts from some random idiots Youtube video, but not able to accept 3000 years worth of intellectual observation, calculation and experimentation. Or, as you say, don’t seem capable of using their own eyes.
Their poor science, mathematics and their constant contradictions are embarrassing, yet they can’t seem to see them even when you point them out.
slymonster soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 wgenske RustyShackleford5 i swear its cult mentality
they go on and on about masons and Illuminati and jesuits etc etc but the flat earth society seems like a full on brainwashing cult
i would not be suprised 1 bit if it wasnt discovered that all thier vids had subliminal messages embedded in them
i just have no other explanation for how so many can just shut off thier brains and keep repeating the same nonsense over and over no matter how many times they are proven wrong, laughedd at and called morons
slymonster yardapekazoo68 wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5 Sooooo, what you’re saying is, even though the moon is almost directly over Australia, you can see it from Nevada when you fold the map back into a globe? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.
yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
Yes. Did you check out the link?. It’s basically for the same reason that when it is daylight in Nevada it can also be daylight on the East coast of Australia.
We are only talking about 7 or 8 hours difference. How many hours can you see the sun for? How many hours can you see the moon for. You don’t need complicated and inaccurate maths. If you can see the moon for 8 hours during one night, then you can see the moon in both locations that are 8 hours away. And that’s without climbing 60 miles high.
This is pretty basic logic.
yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
yardapekazoo68slymonsterwgenskesoaringeagleRustyShackleford5 If you check out the link and the actual position of the moon at the time of launch you are only looking at four timezones. That is four hours. If you can see the moon for only 8 hours a night then it is logical to assume that you can see the moon from four hours away.
In the video you posted the moons position is shown for 2am on the 15th of july. It’s not even the same day.
Come on, if they can’t get that right on the video, how can anyone take his maths seriously
He used the wrong date to show the position of the moon.
THE WRONG DATE.
yardapekazoo68 slymonster wgenske soaringeagle RustyShackleford5
Apart from the glaringly obvious mistake of using entirely the wrong day to calculate the position of the moon at the time of the rocket launch, he is also using the wrong maths, which he conveniently doesn’t even show you in the video. He just presents it as a fact without showing how he’s worked it out.
It really is a non-sense video.
You need to open your eyes and question why he is using the wrong date to show the position of the moon and why he doesn’t show you the maths.
It’s just fake pseudo science.
Real photographs of skylines as seen from 50 miles, and more. Plug that into your formula for prof of flatness. Nobody wants to prove a ball by just showing the curvature of the earth. How is it possible that nobody can show me just one instance of curve. The ONE thing that ought to be LITERALLY EVERYWHERE, IN EVERY DIRECTION on your ball – yet you won’t even answer my request for one single instance of observable curvature. There’s my proof. The end.
slymonster Please help with this question: If the earth is rotating 1000 miles an hour to the east, wouldn’t a ship sailing west have to go over 1000 miles per hour just to avoid standing still?
AmericanReal slymonster already addressed that
standing still in relationship to what? the earth it6s spinning on? or the fixed non movig position in space
lets look at it from both angles from earth a shit going 50 mph is going at 50 mph along the ocean so if it has 500 miles to go it goes 50 miles every hour taking 10 hours to go 500 miles regardless of direction
if your observing from space
the earths spinning going 1 direction it appears to be going 1050 miles per hour in other 950, backwards because the earth is spinning And you are silling out there in space stationary watching the ship move 50 mph against a 1000 mph spin
so lets look at this from a standpoint of time
the boat takes 10 hours to go 500 miles in either direction
the earth moving at 1000 mph has not completed 1/2 a turn in 10 hours
lets say both start at 12 noon, neither direction crosses a time zone so both end at 10 pm
both travel 500 miles over ground
from space 1 will appear to be moving backwards toewards sunset as the other moves forward towards sunset
but both have traveled the same distance over land/water in the same ammount of time
you have to look at this from 2 perspectives to understand it
the perspective flat earthers think it should be seen from..; isolated from the earths movement as if they are no0t moving with the earth.. from that perspective yes the ship w]ould have to go 1000 mph to stat still..in spave not on the ground/water
the other true perspective is viewing it from yourf possition spinning with thde globe
when you look at a person standing still they are standing still on the grounfd that is spinning at 1000mph
you are spinning at 1000mph with it
1000 mph you think is fast but considering the size of the globe its 360 degrees in 24 hours ..do the math to see how many degrees that is per hour and gyou see its really a slow turn
a bike wheel spinning at 100 rpm seems lil fast, slow it to 10 rpm and its slow slow it to 1 rpd revolution per day, thats the speed the earth spins at, granted if you increase the bike wheel diameter to the size of the earth the tire part will be moving at 1000 mph while still being turning very slowly
your average car engine idles at what 6k-12k rpm …at an idle? if the earth spun 1/2 that fast the crust we live on would be about light speed
are you understanding any of this?
it takes 1 day to rotate 1 time
thats very slow in reality
you have to stop confusing movement on the surface of a spinning ball with movemet through space
Oh, now it does make a difference, by a half a pound….how incredibly dumbed down do you have to be to actually believe that dribble. Show the curvature, you will win the argument. That simple. But you can’t. It’s not there. Spherical trigonometry disproves your ball. The end.
wgenske look at the horizon moron theres the curviture
can you see europe from america? oh gee why not/ if it was flat you should be able to right
soaringeagle wgenske Horrible! Terrible excuse for a wasted brain. You’re a dumbed down sheep.
Gravity therefore pulls things down AND makes things go up? Nonsense, dribble, complete garbage.
wgenske your an idiot force measured in g force makes things go up or down gravity pulls masses together while the earth pulls on the moon the moon pulls on the earth get it but centrifugal force..is a aposing force pushing you outwards
soaringeagle wgenske You ball preservers cannot get your story straight. You don’t even know the fallacy you claim to support. Foolish and childlike. Sorry, you’re a moron, but one day you will have to come to terms with the fact that your ball is indefensible. It’s pure fantasy.
wgenske did you go to school?
wgenske you are diagnosed as learning disabled correct? if you already know that about yourself why are you so insistent on being right when your so so so wrong
soaringeagle wgenske Foolishness and retardation are your lot in life.
wgenske soaringeagle dude im not the idiot that thinks the earths flat
Weight and mass makes it come right back down . That we can prove . Gravity in the other hand has never been proven and never will . A 6ft man is suppose to be able to see 3.1 miles to the horizon yet I can see at least 15 without a telescope . With a telescope, way way way further than that yet I am still only 6 ft off the ground . Refraction, so I now understand only accounts for a small % of light we can see . So please don’t try to pull that BS on me again
Austruth Okay, and WHY does it come right back down, exactly ? And why the sun or the moon aren’t falling ?
rhooManu Austruth the sun and moon magically dont have mass
or maybe its weight
who knows ..its all rationalization
a week ago i thoight austruth had hope of being able to think clearluy again
now i think he is too brainwashed by the flat earth cult to understand simple common sense and logic
he is no longer rational
i really had hoped he was savable
rhooManu Austruth raises hand ohh ohh ohh teacher i know this pick me pick me
cause of gravity?
and cause we orbit the sun and the moon orbits us? they dont just float around magically over our heads controlled by no force other then the massive human ego?
see austruth how things just work with gravity but the flat earth nonsense makes no sense at all?
gravity pulls it all together (pun not intended) and makes it all work
soaringeagle 10 points to Gryffindor! But I want to know his answer too. rhooManu Austruth
Austruth what is weight
weight is the effect of a force on a mass
that force is gravity withoit gravity there is no such thing as weight
where can you see 15 and no you cannot see farther with a telescope you can see far objects closerr but you cannot see farther
of you are looking out to sea you cannot see 15 miles unless thee is a temperature inversion
if you are looking from 1 mountaintop to another across a valley then that changes everything
your the 1 pulling bs
define weight
volume and density determine mass
weight is only pressent when a force acts on that mass
3.1 miles is only half way to the island right in front of where I live yet I can see the beach clearly on it . You guys are the ones who are full of it and just believe what your scientist say . I know the map of the flat earth is not right and I know the Suns movements on a flat earth hard to understand if your whole life you have been taught one thing . I am questioning everything I have been taught . 1 bad assumption in the 1500’s had led to people having to lie once they realised what we live on isn’t quite what they said it was ,
Austruth how steep is the beach how hight are the dunes above water level you cant base an entire belkef system on unknown data
lets assume your 6 feet tall the beach you see is a gentle slope rising 6 feet or more
theres your 6.2 miles
simple
Austruth and come on dont you think scientist know a lil more then flat earth morons?
Austruth “I know the Suns movements on a flat earth [are] hard to understand” → It’s not hard to understand : it’s just impossible, and you just can’t answer those simple questions with your flat earth idea :
— How could it stand up in the air like this ?
— Why do we see the sun appearing and disappearing at the horizon at dawn and dusk if it’s rotating somewhere up in the sky ?
— How could there be night ? A light source is visible at a very long distance, EVEN if this source is unidirectional (wich the sun is not), so it should be visible at every moment.
Watch a flat earth sun movement video and it wi answer your questions . I’m not saying I believe that . I have questions to .
Austruth No, it doesn’t. I saw a flat earth sun movement video, and this is my answer : it is NOT possible and it doesn’t explain those same questions :
— HOW does the sun hang up in the sky ?
— WHY does he appear and disappear at the horizon ?
— HOW could there be night ?
— WHY can’t I find the end of the earth ?
— HOW can we send satellites up in the air ?
Round earth solves everything very simply, flat earth can’t explain any one of these.
rhooManu Austruth they claim theres no such thing as satellites
1 even said they spend billions making fake satellites shiooting them up then crashing them into the ocean and tossing them in landfills just to trick us into thinking satellites are real
ofcourse this is a guy i knew for years who for 11 years had a lemon sized brain tumor
was never smart at all
he used to sell dinosaur fossils, he knew they were tens of millions of years old
but now claims dinos and man lived side by side and we kept them as pets
i think his tumors coming back
Austruth let me explain something about flat earthers to you
they scream show me just 1 photo of earth from space you show them 10,000 they say they are all cgi
then they show you a 100% obviously cgi video of the flat earth sun mvement and they claim that proves the earth is flat
stop letting them rot your brain
i have said this over and over..dxo not watch any more flat earth videos…not 1
you have questions…we have answers..real answers that dont require magic just physics
rhooManu Austruth austruth
let me simplify what he is saying
you have to just abandon the flat earth nonsense that is absolutely impossible by all the laws of nature and accept the spherical spinning earth that makes perfect sense and works exactly as we observe it to work without having to get rid of gravity or move the sun or put up a domde and a mysterious army to guard it
soaringeagle Nope, I don’t want him to just drop it. I want him to explain to me. If someone can’t explain something, it means he don’t understand this thing. So if Austruth stands for this flat earth idea, I want to see if he understands it.
rhooManu soaringeagle Austruth have you ever met a flat earther who was able to defend or explain their beliefs in a logical way?
austruth isnt as far gone s most of them however over the past weeks he has slipped more and more into their brainwashing
this is flat earth logic for ya
me how can the earth be flat when gravity would make it collapse into a ball
fe’er your so siilly you beieve in gravity?
me hows the moon affect tides if gravity doesnt exist
fe’er tides are caused by wind and evaporattion
me even on windless days mid winter and on a predictable schedule thats remained constant for thousands of years and is in exact sync with the moons orbit?
fe’er the moon can’t affect tides its a hologram, you must be retarded if you believe the moons real
this is how flat earthers explain their beliefs
you think isis and other radical groups are radical and obsessive these flat earthers are about as radical and delusional as it comes and they are affecting alarming numbers of people
Comparing me to ISIS you knob!!! Nice
Austruth no did i say you i said flat earthers as a whole are more radical and obsessive then isis im not saying that they are terorists just radicals and obsessive
they do call themselves flat earthers after all
they dont just say i think the earth might be flat
they say i am a flat earther the earth is absolutely flat and your brainwashed if you believe anything else
its very much cult like in that flat earther becomes their identity
soaringeagle Austruth
I find that FE’ers are very much in the ‘cult’ category. I’m not sure I would call them all radicalised, though some obviously are.
One of the main issues I find is that they do not realise that Eric Dubay makes a lot of money off his ‘flat Earth’. Much like the American priests who live in very large houses whilst their flock lives in poverty.
Is their any profit in me trying to convince people that gravity exists? Not at all. Is there any profit for Eric Dubay by convincing people it doesn’t exist, absolutely. The flat Earth is just one big money making con. It is only because it is so absurd that the authorities have not arrested him. Then again, maybe that’s why he is living where he does.
slymonster soaringeagle Austruth eric dubay loves to say “your a paid shill how m uch did the masons pay you shill to claim the earth h is round” well eric dubay is a high order mason! he owes all of us alot of money
maybe we can sue for breech of contract since he verbally contracted that we are to be paid by the masons to claim the earths round?
Austruth
“Gravity in the other hand has never been proven and never will .”
Then what, exactly, accounts for the results of Henry Cavendish’s experiments of 1797-98?
bobm73 Austruth gravity is entirely proven
forget about cavandish
how do you account for being pulled to the ground whenn jumping out of a plane
not flatters say its density..stupid as that is
the red bull space jump was above 99% of all atmosphere meanning the density is 1% of what it is at ground level but he was still subjext to i think 99.98% gravity
if gravity was fake only density pushes us down then he would fall slowly til he hit dense air and accelerate
but no
he reached almost mach 2 twice the speed of sound and slowed down due to wind resistence as he got into denser air
gravity proven
ofcourse dropping a cinder block on your head from 10 stories up will prove gravity rather conclusively
Replicate it yourself then
Austruth i did i thought pretty much everyone did in high school
my hs wasnt even a very good 1 but the science teachers were mostly pretty good
Austruth Now I am convinced that you do not understand science at all. To state that gravity has never been proven is a fallacy that Flat Earthers use. Gravity has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt by countless scientists down to millions of schoolchildren who repeat the experiments in school.
I see people have already corrected your view of weight, so I will not repeat that.
You have stated that you live on plains. I suggest you get a decent topographical map so that you can study whether you are looking downhill when you can see 15 miles.
As for the part of the statement where you say ‘without a telescope’. I can only assume you put that in because you believe in the false assumption that the Flat Earthers say perspective works and that you can see further with a telescope. This is just not true. Telescopes cannot see further, they just make things look bigger. They work by the light that enters them, the same as our eyes. They are not some sort of magical tubes.
slymonster Austruth flat earthers have to claim gravity doesn’t exist, and mock it as some magical fairy tale you have to be a moron to believe in, because their entire delusion literally collapses (into a ball) if gravity existed
it is really astounding the levels they go to to believe such stupidity
slymonster Austruth Please forward the links that have solved gravity hypothesis. I would enjoy perusing them. Thank you, much love from Voronezh Russia.
shannonleeshort slymonster Austruth the cavandish experiment is easily repeatable by anyone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGgYjJhGEE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWaYng2eRg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfDllu2GBhg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxZLDNZ8HQ
shannonleeshort slymonster Austruth There is no ‘solving’ to be done. Gravity is real. It is evident. There is no argument.
Sure, you can argue Newtonian or Einsteinian. They are two ‘reasons’ why gravity happens. But in no way do they argue that gravity does not exist..
Gravity is a law of physics, that cannot be argued with. The reason gravity exists can be disputed. But, and this is a bit BUT, scientists have spent decades trying to disprove Einstein’s theory of relativity (where he theorises what causes gravity) but none have been successful.
To not believe in gravity is incomprehensibly foolish. It is evident in everything we do and see.
slymonster shannonleeshort Austruth to simplify
gravity is proven without a doubt to exist and be constant and unchanging
however the “what causes gravity” is still partially debatable
soaringeagle slymonster shannonleeshort Austruth You said what I was trying to say in a very much more succinct way. Thank you.
I personally believe Einstein’s theory to be more accurate than Newtons. Not that there is a lot of difference. The fact that scientists have been trying for so long to disprove it, and have not been able to, to me, shows just how clever he was.
Think of it this way. Hundreds of scientists, probably thousands, would like to be as famous as Einstein. All they would have to do to become as famous would be to disprove one of his predictions. This is why so much effort goes into trying to disprove him. Not once has this happened.
slymonster soaringeagle shannonleeshort Austruth flat earthers try to claim all of his , and newtons ideas are wrong
i had to explain propulsion in space something like 60 times in 60 increasingly dumbed down ways over a several day period finaly resorting to showing him multiple youtube vids demonstrating it in a vacuum chamber and he still insisted they were faked
i just love how in 1 breath they say “i rejected everything oi learned in school as a lie” then in the next act like they are smarter then the smartest peoople on earth
they really are a strange breed arent they
soaringeagle slymonster shannonleeshort Austruth OMG. The whole, jets don’t work in a vacuum thing. They try to cite science for the fact that they won’t work and don’t realise that science would say that jets would be more efficient in a vacuum. It’s just another example of flat earthers selectively believing what they want.
slymonster soaringeagle shannonleeshort Austruth i tried to tell them that a fart in space would propell you haha
but they insist the gasses need something to push on and theres nothing to push on in a vacuum
but others will say theres no such thing as a vacuum that tgheres an ether, wich would be something to push on
they just cant get their thinking straight at all
There’s a simple demonstration that will show how rockets work in a vacuum; simply stand on a skateboard, and throw baseballs! U0001f609
Soaring…
“In space, no one can hear you fart…”
🙂
Sly, I believe you meant “rockets” in the above, right?
bobm73 Yes, sorry. Been a long week 😉
It’s neither.
Siela very correct, if you take away the water especially its a very odd ugly shape
its closer to being round then flat certainly..
but nothing in natures truly round
Globe earth is not something that one can observe, it has to be taught; it has to be engraved. The globe earth model has been programmed into us since day 1, even when we were sucking binky. That is why it is the DEFAULT position from which we look at the world. It is no surprise that our first knee jerk reaction, when we first hear of the flat earth idea, is to scream, call people stupid, and immediately tune out…etc. But if you allow some time for the idea to sink in, it is not as outrages as it first sounds, it just takes a lot of time for it to settle.
Lastly, none of these 10 supposed proofs against flat earth posses serious terminal problems for it. Certain things can be explained differently using flat earth model and it makes just as much sense. The idea is to get away from some preconceived notions before you start judging. The writer of this article is still looking at the world through a globed earth lens, not as an outsider would. For example, the center of gravity idea is only needed on globed earth model, therefore it only explains globed earth model. Flat earth does not even rely on gravity, let alone the center of gravity. Therefore the premise of the point is even false. Point #7, does not prove globed earth, it only proves that the celestial bodies are ball shaped, thats all. Globed earth has its own set of problems that people don’t realize. The problem is that hey feel that they do need to justify or even realize those problems because it has “already been established” in their mind that the earth is a ball.
And there is also that pride that kicks in. People are not too reluctant to admit that they are the ones that could have been fooled this whole life.
bgbs other way around dude round earth can be observed can be proven flat earth has to be programmed in a cult like way you have to change every law of nature to make thde flat earth work you have to come up with the craziest nonsense anyones ever heard ..in short you just have to stop thinkig and let the cult programming guide yoir insane responces
i have never met a single flat earther that can make a point that makes sense..not 1
they all rely entirely on denial of facts
soaringeagle bgbs Can you please show me some curvature? At least you could observe that, right?
Wrong. No curvature, no ball, sorry. The end.
i highly highly encourage anyone to refer to dr walter martins “the kingdom of the cults” and read as much as you can about each cult described before even listening to a flat earth adherant.
the sticks method works of done correctly bit you can go on youtube and see flat eartheds using sticks to prove their theory.
occams razor is particularly useful here as tricking all navy seaman, pilots, artillery commanders and gps devices is like they say “the greatest lie on earth”
there is no reason to fool people that the earth is flat.
the disc model that the flat earth society purports is a modern version of flat earth and is highly dependant on manu things like the sun being a spotlight (their defense for time zones)
smart people can come up with a good argument for anything and the crazier it is the more likely it will be adopted on the interenet.
i just hope no pilots , military , or most importantlh parents are pulled in to this cult. i predict like all cults it will continue to grow.
Birdofthehill Show me the curvature.
If the earth is spinning 1000 miles an hour to the east, how can ships travel on the sea going west. Wouldn’t they have to go faster than 1000 an hour just to avoid standing still?
How about airplanes, surely if the earth is a spinning orb, that would wreak havoc with all flights? Firstly, the pilot, at about 500 mph and cruising at 35,000 feet, would have to dip the nose to the tune of about 2,700 feet per minute, just to stay level. But pilots never do this, they fly straight and level.
If you were flying directly due east, we would have to add some magical speed to that of the plane, depending on our latitude. At the equator, flying at 500 mph, you’d have to add over 1,000 miles per hour to the speed of the craft, netting over 1,500 mph. Or am I wrong?
wgenske I’m asking about ships on the ocean, why did you answer about airplanes?
AmericanReal wgenske Sorry, that was an addition to your question, not directed at you, but at anyone looking to answer your question.
AmericanReal wgenske i answered both
soaringeagle AmericanReal wgenske You didn’t answer anything. Your model doesn’t work. You live on a magical globe where everything appears flat, and motionless, and yet you have introduced two variables which make no sense at all. Any ball which spins must have some motion which is detectable, observable and measurable. It has no spin at all. You all admit that the ball, for all intents and purposes has no spin. It appears to behave as though it is still, which it is. Further, any ball must have some curvature, but none is available anywhere on the earth, for us to measure. None at all. Zilch. Zero. Nada, not a bit, not even one inch of curvature. If you live on a sphere that has no curvature, you’ve come to a complete halt on a flat plane.
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal You are completely wrong. Look up and see the stars spinning that his motions go to the South Pole see them spinning in the opposite direction that is spinning and proof that we are on the globe look at the horizon. You cannot see beyond it as curvature look at a ship on the horizon as it goes over the curve take out a telescope and try to find it again you cannot say it that’s curvature the earth is curved is proven. Now if you look at for that ship against the climb a tree you’ll see it because as you climb high above the curve. You see farther over a curve. Now day and night as the 24 hours that it takes to rotate the earth. Once that is the art of spinning. How can you be so dense you see the spinning is observable every single day by the fact that you see a day you see the curvature by how far you can see a cannot see any farther unless you go higher than you do see farther that is proof of curvature you live on a magical flat planet that cannot possibly exist because gravity would cause it to collapse into a ball. What would make a flat planet flat. Why wouldn’t exist a can’t it’s physically impossible if the logical absurdity
wgenske you have absolutely no idea how planes work
i’m a pilot so let me explain it to you
1 planes maintain altitude by 1 pressure altitude, monitoring the altimiter and 2 visual reference to the horizon (fly by stick, cly by dial the computer handles it all) whenj your flying you are making hundreds of corections a second there is no flying straight, the air you fly through is njearly never stil and smooth so your constantly adjusting roll, pitch and yaw
a plane wil folow the curve of the earth because the pressure oft the air folows the curve of the earth
2 the air spins with the earth, so when you leave the ground at 150 mph and reach a cruising speed of 500 mph thats 500 mph through the air, wich if the zairs still is same as speed over ground, vbut since winjds always a factor wind speed whether flying into it, or with it affe ts speed over ground’
commonly, you add 1/2 or subtract 1/2 of the wind speed to or from your air speed to gdet the best cruising speed’
this does affect speed over grund
but, onoly by a matter of the wind your flying into, or with
the air..atmosphere (not wind/weather) is spinning with the earth while the winds moving within the soinnning atmosphere
soaringeagle wgenske Actually, your claim that you are a pilot and the statement that as a pilot you make “hundreds of corrections per second” – are incongruous. You could never, ever, make that many corrections in a second. You’re wrong. Aside from turbulence, airplanes attempt to fly straight and level while cruising. Your statement that a plane will follow the curvature of the earth is also interesting. What curvature? What is the calculation of the curvature of the earth. Can you show me some curvature? Your model depends on it, since it is supposed to be spherical in shape. No curve, no ball. Sorry.
wgenske soaringeagle Not to mention that their gyros operate off of a flat plain with a flat horizon!
yardapekazoo68 wgenske soaringeagle And gyros try to remain in a constant state in relationship to what? You got it. The gravitational pull of the earth
wgenske soaringeagle Actually you’re wrong, your hands of the sticks are constantly in motion is millimeters of pressure, but you’re constantly making corrections. Again, your wrongs they tried to fly straight but they fluctuate it’s called dynamic and static stability when anything displaces it from level flight it will go the other way than back the other way then back to the way in backing away and slowly rocked back and forth level that is only when the wings have dihedral, instability is built into a fighter jet on the other hand, have negative stability built into them so that they are very easily displaced from a level flight and have to really constantly force it into level flight. We have already showed you the calculations for a curved earth. There is the curve. It is a ball sorry you lose. Talking to flat earthers is like talking to a brick wall. It shown that there is a curve is a where’s the curve we have already told you how to measure the curvature of the earth how to observe it with your naked eye. The end
The end? Show me a picture of the curved earth. Better yet, show me curved water. Your globe must have some of that, right? Nope, none. No curve, no ball. The end.
wgenske how bout i teach you how to see a curve that you look at every day of your life/ go to a beach or lake side (huge lake) with tall buildings nearby
if your eye height is 5’6 at the waters edge you can see about 2-3 miles across the water
climb to the roof of the highest building nearby..see how much farther you see? thats cause yor looking at a curve
never saw sunset and sunrise? never wondered where the sun went? thats proof of a curve and a spinning ball
you see the curve every day yet deny its there
intentionally denying what your own eyes see plainly
It’s laughable that you could hang onto that statement while I can show you literally hundreds of images of entire skylines across bodies of water, from over 50 miles away. Plug those numbers into your formula and you’ll debunk your own globe. The end.
wgenske actully every 1 of them is caused by a temperature inversion layer causing a supderiour mirage but you can only tell when 1 exists (often twice a week) by getting an aviation weather report for soaring
wgenske and when you know when there is a temperature inversion, and the temperature gradient and height you add thatt into tghe equation and it fits perfectly
its simply a matter of people not fully understanding all the data needed to get a completely accurate calculation
but ya know, if they just go a few feet up, ..and i mean only a few they are unable to witness the refraction and no longer see the skyline
soaringeagle wgenske Wrong!!!! What you see is flatness…what you’re claiming CANNOT happen on your ball. Sorry. See below, visual proof. Not words, images. You’re a victim of MK Ultra, totally dumbed down like the rest of the sheep. Good luck!!
wgenske http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/real-photos-of-round-earth-vs-composite-images-or-cgi/
curved earth pics
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/law-of-perspective-vs-curved-earth-horizon/
curved water pics
show me the edge of the earth the dome? what you cant? hmm guess it doesnt exist now does it no edge no dome no flat the end
soaringeagle wgenske I never claimed there was a dome. You’ve shown flat. That’s what it is. No curvature in ANY of your images. None. Sorry. Wrong…MK Ultra is your God.
wgenske
OK, here you go:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1020/NASA-to-share-Earth-s-daily-selfies
Oh, wait – you don’t trust NASA. OK, let’s look at a few that come from some other source:
http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2015/05/XMM-Newton_self-portraits_with_planet_Earth
or
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/12/3016254/russian-satellite-earth-from-space-121-megapixels
or even
http://www.space.com/19558-chris-hadfield-earth-from-space-photos.html
Now, fair’s fair. How about YOU show us at least one photo of your flat Earth, showing the whole thing? Or if you can’t come up with one, give us at least a plausible story as to why such a thing does not yet exist.
So if you didn’t make corrections you would just fly out into space? Wow!! Why do we need rocket ships then ?
Some “pilot” tried to tell me that he makes “hundreds of corrections per second”. Gibberish.
wgenske have you ever flown a plane? driven a car? even rode a bike?
how about a unicycle
a unicycles about as close as you can get on the ground
but in thye sky you are operating in 365 degress every gust every corection you make you have to emediately compensate for
you apply a little left stick to bank left you have to add left rudder to coordinate ca=use the drag of the higher wing has more lift and drag and attempts to turn you in th e oposu=ite direction then desired at the same time the nose drops you have to pull back accounting for increased g force in the turn it will try to over bank so you have to apply right aileron to keep it from over banking you are literaly making hundreds of corections constantly .. the stick migt only move millimeters but its constantly moving compensating for every gust every change in wind speed and direction
you really are proud of knowing nothing arent you
soaringeagle wgenske I am proud to know I am on a flat plane,not a ball. You’re wrong, you know it but too proud to admit it. Sorry, if you want to worship your Mind control, that’s fine, I escaped that cult.
wgenske soaringeagle
“You’re a victim of MK Ultra, totally dumbed down like the rest of the sheep.”
I always find it funny that it’s the flat-Earth conspiracy nuts who consistently – and shrilly and loudly – declare everyone ELSE to be sheep. Especially when it is abundantly clear that very, very few of THEM have bothered to actually check any of this out for themselves (and by that I mean actually performing the necessary calculations and experiments) and instead are just accepting what a very few other nuts have said. And, in turn, as has been repeatedly seen here, those who do claim – and show – calculations, etc., are ALWAYS shown to have made some very basic errors somewhere along the way.
I mean, come on, people – none of this requires an advanced degree in physics. The experiments and calculations which clearly demonstrate not only a round Earth but also the heliocentric model of the solar system are well within the capabilities of a high school student. So why aren’t you doing your own calculations and showing them here?
bobm73 wgenske soaringeagle you are aware they get their info from youtube vids they can barely read
and their responses…do they show any signs of intelligence at all?
i asked eric dubay once “can you count your fingers and toes cause if you can count your fingers and toes i can teach you why the earth is round and not flat’
he responded ‘umm what?”
i replied ‘sorry, was the question too hard for you? i asked can you count your fingers, it is important to judge your comprehension level in orrder to dettermine f you are able to understand the simple mathamatics required to prove the earths round’
he replied ‘umm what/ you think math proves something maths a made up lie put out by the masons’
wgenske clearly demonstrates an inability to think
burt bob join us on http://www.flatearthdebinked.com
wgenske soaringeagle no you joined the flat earth cult look how you talk you talk like a cult follower
wgenske
And your experience in flying a plane amounts to – what, exactly?
I first soloed almost 20 years ago. And while it might not be “hundreds” of corrections per second (at least not conscious ones), you ARE constantly adjusting the flight controls to keep on heading and altitude.
And as to the claim that if the Earth curved, an airplane would constantly increase its height above ground – well, that sort of nonsense could only come from someone who (a) didn’t have a clue how airplanes actually work, and (b) has never flown themselves. Here’s a hint: in small private aircraft, you don’t even have any instrument which can give you height-above-ground (unless you have a GPS aboard, but even then you don’t maintain altitude by reference to it). What you are doing is maintaining altitude by reference to a device which is essentially a barometer – in other words, you are maintaining PRESSURE altitude, corrected (as often as you can) to the pressure as measured at a nearby location on the ground (which is why you hear “altimeter settings” when listening to aviation radio). You don’t generally care what your actual height-above-ground is, unless you’re flying over mountainous terrain, or until you are approaching an airport for landing. (And at that point, you are maintaining altitude through a combination of reference to the altimeter and visual reference to the runway.)
So why don’t you limit your claims to something you actually know about? I realize that this would severely reduce the number of postings you could make here, but you could solve THAT by simply getting a little education and experience.
bobm73 wgenske i’m a pilot too not with as much experience as you
but its hilarious when they say if you don’t point the nose down evgery 6 miles you fly off into space
on yt there was a guy claimig to be an airline pilot making that claim! saying the earth was flat and he can prove it cause he never had to point the nose down (1st off airline pilots fly by turning a nob and flipping a switch the computer flies for them while they take a nap)
because he was responsible for thousands of lives i had to report him to the faa
you remember awhile back. a famous crash of a plane that was supposed to be uncrashable/
the pilot was taking a nap when the autopilot kicked off due to a strong gust. the copilot pulled back on the stick cauusing a stall
the pilot woke up when thde stall alarm started blaring, he too pulled back on the stick while the copilot pushed forward trying to recover from the stall but in that plane the 2 sticks worked independently of eachother and the pilots had priority
so the pilot trying to hold it in the air kept it in a stall, from 35,00o to 2,000 when the copilot said wait are you pulling back you should be pushing forward.. but by that time they were too low to recover and crashed an uncrashable plane simply cause they forgot how to ffly if the computer wasnt flying for them
soaringeagle bobm73 wgenske
I may not have more experience than you; I gave up flying for fun a while back, when avgas prices drove the cost of even putting around in a 152 to unreasonable heights. (Took up motorcycling instead; you can scare yourself just as badly, for far less money…;-)). But yes, the notion of “pushing the stick down every six miles” is just silly. (By the way, were you taught that the stick/yoke was your primary altitude control, or the throttle?)
I have a hard time imaging a professional pilot that would be trying to haul back on the yoke while a stall warning was blaring, though. That’s just insane! (And I’m speaking as someone who, as a student, managed to get the stall horn on while turning final – let me tell you, THAT gets your attention! :-))
bobm73 soaringeagle wgenske i flew sailplanes
so gravity is my throttle, pushing forward controls speed, finding thermals and lift were altitude control
i flew with http://www.freedomswings.org so plane use..free instruction…free only tow charges were an issue and we had a sponsorship syste to cover that if you couldnt afford it
so really it cost only what i could afford
ps i started flying 2 weeks after getting out of the hospital after a giant pothole on a sharp country road corner threw me off my motorcycle onto a rock in a creek bed
motorcycles are scary but that is why i no longer can walk and fly instead
soaringeagle bobm73 wgenske
Sorry to hear about the motorcycle accident, but it’s good to hear that you were able to get into sailplanes. I’d always wanted to try those, back when I was still making airplane noises regularly – had a wonderful gliderport right in the area back then – but never did. Looked like WAYYYY fun. But like I said, I gave up wings for two wheels (but I ride like a old grandmother).
Anyway, back to flying (and who knows, maybe I will get back to flying some day) – yup, you basically got the same instruction I did; the stick or yoke was to be considered a speed control, and it’s the throttle that you treat as the altitude control. Later on, they’ll teach you (in powered aircraft) that the reality is a little more complicated than that, but I guess the original teaching is supposed to build the right habits.
Thinking back to my flying days, though, and finally getting back on topic – I wonder how the flat earthers account for the difference between true and magnetic north, which does NOT vary around the Earth as it should if the Earth were flat. Or for that matter, where do they think the South pole is? And how to they account for expeditions (and these days, commercial flights, even) which cross Antarctica?
AmericanReal i’ll make this simple
are they traveling across the sea? or through space?
the answers both simultaneously
the boats crossing the sea at 5-15 knots the earth is spinning at 1000mph
and orbiting etc etc
if your sitting out in space, watching from a stationary platform as a boat crosses the ocean you’d see the earth spinning for a couple of days at least before that ss that ocean
now if you take a basketball, put an ant on it and 2 points, point a and b that ant can walk to point a and b no matter the speed the balls spun, thrown, rolled (as long as hes not squashed or knocked off)
luckily on a smooth spinning globe no danger of that
the point is your travel across the face of the earth is travel across the face of the earth… don’t confuse it with your travel with the earth on its spinning orbit through space
soaringeagle why are you answering about aircraft when I’m asking about ships sailing on the sea?
AmericanReal soaringeagle i answered both because both questions were asked i answered the ship question at least 3 times now
but the answer to both are basicly the same
soaringeagle AmericanReal What if you are travelling through the air? As in an airplane? Are you saying that would act like an ant too, except that this ant would be a fly, and would magically enjoy the same rotation of the basketball beneath it? It would be magnetically “moved along” in the direction of the rotation of the earth, no matter which direction this fly flew in? It could then make some sense…
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal Again, you are travelling through the air. The atmospere is spinning with the globe. So no, it would not wreak havoc with planes.
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal If the atmosphere is spinning with the “globe”, then flying eastward (in the opposite direction of the spin of such “globe”) would create a headwind of potentially over 1,000 mph. With a typical speed of 500mph, the airplane would be losing ground at 500mph. 500mph-1000mph = -500mph. I think what you’re trying to say is that the atmosphere, though spinning with your fantastic globe, actually has no effect on the plane, as if the earth and the atmosphere were actually motionless. That, coupled with the lack of evidence of a single inch of curvature, kills your magical globe.
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle AmericanReal wr0ng you have no clue how it works do you
in a train if the windows are closed do you feel a headwind of 100 mph? the atmosphere spins with the globe
wind happens within the atmosphere
if the globes spinning at 1000 mph
and theres no wind, theres no headwind
there is evidence of curvature everywhere
yes the atmosphere spinning with the globe has no effect on the plane the same as walking on the ground onj a spinning globe has no affect at all
this is simple logic why are you not understanding it
There is evidence of curvature? Please show me. There is none. The end.
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal as i said above the atmosphere spins with te earth.. in this case the ant on the balls a poor example because its moving within the earths atomisphere
you cant do sich a simplified model within the atmosphere because the ball does not have its own atmosphere seperate from the earths
soaringeagle wgenske AmericanReal Ah, so your ant on the ball example is not going to work now. Ok. Face it, what you’re saying is that the ball earth has a spin which is undetectable to anyone, at any point, and does not affect any craft, whether land, sea or air based. The ball spins but acts as though there is no spin. I say if it looks, feels and measures motionless – well, it must be motionless.
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal Gee no one can answer my simple question about ships sailing west, against the spinning of the earth (and the sea) at 1000 miles east.
AmericanReal wgenske soaringeagle i answered your simple question several times go back and read it
soaringeagle AmericanReal Here’s a good interview with a Navy missile instructor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJOB0vcZ4NI
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle AmericanReal i also had a guy claiming to be an airp]l,ine pilot who claimed youd have to point the nose down every 6 miles an idiot like that responsible for thousands of lives had to have his liscence revoked and he was reported to the faa
you dont think no military men ever went insane after service?
you do realize that all the long range balistics manuals contradict him entirely right
AmericanReal The oceans / seas, spin with the Earth. The water is pretty ‘stationary’ relative to the land. The boat travels through this water. 5 knots Westwards id the same as 5 knots Eastwards. It’s like when you get up to walk to the toilet on a train. The train may be travelling it 100mph, that doesn’t mean you have to walk faster than 100 mph in order to walk towards the front of the train.
slymonster AmericanReal Exactly. So, the oceans spin with the Earth toward the east. So, how can a ship sail west and make any distance if its travelling under 1000 miles per hour? In fact, if a ship was stationary in the sea, it would only have to wait an hour to have moved 1000 miles.
AmericanReal slymonster again when walking on a train in either direction you do not have to walk at 100 mph to walk 100 feet…inside the train
look outside the =train in 1 direction yoir walking 100+5 inthe direction of the train
walk the othder way look oiutside your walking backwards at 100-5 .. still 5mph inside the traiin 100+ or – outside the train inside the train yoir on earth outside your in space
if your looking at a person walking forward or backwards inside a train from outside the train thier speed is the train speed plus or minus the walking speed’
AmericanReal
Did you really just type that nonsense? Do you know how hard it is to push several tonnes through the water?
The sea is moving with the land. If a ship was stationary, ignoring the slow currents one always gets at sea, it would remain stationary.
What part of this very simple principle do you find difficult?
slymonster AmericanReal
“Do you know how hard it is to push several tonnes through the water?”
Yes, I do, and it’s MUCH easier than trying to get a Flat-Earther to understand high-school physics.
AmericanReal slymonster
Whatever it is you’re smoking, I’d like some.
If the oceans spin along with the Earth, then a ship stationary with respect to any point on the ocean is also stationary with respect to any other point on the Earth – whether that point is on the ocean or on dry land. The speed of the ship is measured relative to the surface of the Earth, and if it is “stationary in the sea” that means that the “1,000 MPH” figure (correct at the equator only, of course) is already accounted for. The ship has move at some speed RELATIVE TO A REFERENCE POINT ON THE SURFACE in order to make progress toward or away from that point.
Isn’t there ANYONE here (at least amongst the Flat-Earth herd) who didn’t sleep through their high school physics and geometry classes?
slymonster AmericanReal But if the train stopped abruptly and I had walked backwards to the toilet, yes I would be at a difference distance than when I started.
AmericanReal slymonster earth never stops moving
and again are you saying diferent distance inside or outside the train
the only reason your distance inside the train would alter ids if you werent holding on and went flying
i know some flat earthers must be able to understand logic..right?
ok if your sitting still in a train moving 100 mph
your sitting still on that train
your moving at 100 mph through space. or down the tracks
the earth is the train
the tracks are the earths movement
your movement inside the train is unafected by its movement down the tracks
your movement down the tracks is slightky affected by your movement thriugh the train
if you walk forward you will pass a lightpost a second before if you walked backwards
thats outside the train “in space”
inside the train 10 cars forward, 10 cars backward are the same distance that take the same time to travel
but if you walk backwards or forwards determines when you pass that lightpost outside thee train
get it?
can’t possibly simplify it more then that
soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster Let’s say you’re right. For now. Where’s the curvature of the globe? From any airplane the horizon not only looks level, it rises to the eye of the observer. This is only possible on a flat surface. Any globe would have the horizon necessarily have to recede from sight, going lower in your field of view, as your altitude increases. This is not what happens in reality. Anyone claiming to see curvature from an airplane is not. Period. There is no detectable curvature at 120,000 feet, let alone at an average cruising altitude of 35,000ft, or thereabouts. None at all. (Please see below). For the video please visit: http://investigate-nasa.com/the-ultimate-lie/
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster You need to be about 90 miles high to see the curvature due to the sheer enormity of the Earth.
And the horizon does not rise to eye level. You can see this for yourself by simply hiking or driving up a mountain. No special equipment needed.
What you are seeing in videos and pictures is where the photographer has framed the horizon.
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal How did you arrive at 90 miles? Is that a calculation or a guess? Every time I am at cruising altitude in an airplane, the horizon is at eye level. That’s higher than any mountain. How do you explain this?
wgenske slymonster soaringeagle AmericanReal The horizon is not at eye level when you are cruising at altitude. You just look at the horizon. How can you know whether you are looking at something that is say 12 degrees different in a vertical direction. You can’t. you need some reference. Like looking at the position of the horizon relative to something else, as I have already explained.
Show us CURVATURE. If it is EVERYWHERE, as it should be, we should be able to see some of it. Just a little. Some. Any? Nope, none. Flat. The end.
wgenske look at the horizon that is the curvature it is literaly everyhere you look but your too dumb to see it
soaringeagle wgenske Wrong!!!! It’s COMPLETELY flat! Now you’re denying the absolute visual proof….Very cute attempt, but, again, wrong on all counts.
wgenske soaringeagle really then where is the sun? where the land the byuildings are on? the buildings arent in the water are they no they are over the curve you are showing us proof its a curve
slymonster wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal the degee diferences to the horizon in any level we can fly at is minimal way below 12 degrees
but it does indeed drop very very very slowly however you are right
“eye level’ is where your eyes are looking
if you really do look straight ahead u see sky
but your eyes drawn to the horizon so that becomes eye level
soaringeagle slymonster wgenske AmericanReal Those buildings should not be able to be seen, you’re wrong. Again, and always.
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster AmericanReal again idiot it is a superior mirage caused ny a temperature inversion
look it upthey happen all the time
if you were a pilot youd know that
soaringeagle wgenske slymonster AmericanReal Hahaaa!!! Laughable…Superior mirage caused by temperature inversion!!!!! HA!! Very good, you made me laugh…well done, clown.
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster AmericanReal just cause your dumb dont make it a joke its a well known documented atmpospheric phennomenon
try reading instead of just acting stupid
stupidity is not an attractive trait if you ever want a date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage#Superior_mirage
soaringeagle wgenske slymonster AmericanReal Utter, complete non-sense. Mirages do not work like that AT ALL. Mind control, Operation Make Everyone Dumb as Fuck really got to you!
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster AmericanReal ofcourse they do did you even read it it explains exactly how it works
wgenske soaringeagle slymonster AmericanReal reading is not mind control its education but if you prefer sttupidity then go on denying facts ignnoring proof hell you are showing me proof of not only a curve but a mirage too and yiur too dumb to even know your proving yourself wrong
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster hows it “rise to eye level’ if its flat// dont be stupid it doesnt rise but the angle to the horizon changes only by a fraction of a degree…down not up and guess what you look down a tiny fraction of a degree to look at it
here this debunks that nonsense in a way even yu will understand
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/the-horizon-is-always-at-eye-level/
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster without even starting the video you can see a very slight curve just in the cover photo
soaringeagle wgenske AmericanReal slymonster Nope, sorry, there is only a curve in your mind. You’re wrong, you know it and yet your pride gets in the way. you are all victims of MIND CONTROL.
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster actualy your thd victim of mind control here
3000 years we knew it was a globe
6 months ago mind control cult leader wannabees foled you into believing this bullshit
soaringeagle wgenske AmericanReal slymonster Pure fantasy. You’re deluded and brain washed. A wasted human, again.
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster really its all facts idiot your the 1 living a fantasy
but hey im not wasting a brain on someone like you any longer
wgenske soaringeagle AmericanReal slymonster watch this too
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/stefan-molyneux-takes-a-flat-earther-call/
see how stupid you look to everyone in the world?
you know you are ruining your life becomeing a social outcast a joke ..someone nobody will ever take seriusly
slymonster AmericanReal
And an even better example on board that train – when you do make it to the toilet and turn on the faucet, the water doesn’t shoot to the rear of the compartment at 100 MPH! It falls straight down into the basin, even though the train is still rapidly moving forward. Figure out why that is, and all of these supposedly “odd things” about the spinning Earth will suddenly become clear to you.
Can anyone tell me what the curvature of the earth is please? What is the mathematical equation. Thank you.
wgenske
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=calculating+the+curvature+of+the+earth
If it is 6miles its 6 miles x 6miles x 8 inches devided by 12 gives you the feet
shut ALL The Earth being a globe has got nothing to do with NASA. We have known the Earth was a globe for 3000 years.
shut ALL slymonster My point is that this has nothing to do with NASA. So your comment has nothing to do with this post. My Grandparents once told me that Santa was real. Did they ever tell me the truth? Does that mean the Earth is not a globe?
slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL Correct. Silly stuff this.
shut ALL stop watching moronic conspiracy videos the moon landings sere real
you can buy a telescope and see rover tiretracks, the ri]over, lander science center and even footprints for yorself
read this and watch the vids
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/moon-landing-hoax-hoax/
soaringeagle shut ALL Why has there been no one on the moon since?
AmericanReal soaringeagle shut ALL Because it is both dangerous and expensive. It’s much cheaper and safer to send rovers and other ‘robots’ up there.
AmericanReal There has been 12 people on the moon since Apollo 11.
AmericanReal I correct myself : 12 people on the moon, including Apollo 11.
soaringeagle shut ALL If you really believe that the Moon landings were real, you have not done your research. There are so many lies, inconsistencies and cover-ups, that you lose all credibility on this and any other forum that you choose to post in. That was your achilles heel.
wgenske If you really believe that the moon landings were fake, you have watched too many dumb videos and not done your research. There are so many proofs and all conspiracy thèses have been debunked so easily, that you lose all credibility on this and any other forum that you choose to post in.
Let’s play: choose ONE argument that definitely proves it was a fake, and we’ll analyse it. If i can prov that argument (which is suppose to be an indubitable prooff) is wrong, then the whole theory shall be wrong, right ?
RhooManu wgenske
Hi RhooManu…Finally….out of all the thousands of commentators out there debating this issue…you are the first Globe supporter to want to play choose one argument…Lets play…before we begin…you should know that I am being sincere with you…..and that I am one of those guys that find this topic fascinating and thought-provoking. At this point in time I do favour that the earth is a globe but not by much…. why?….because there are 200 compelling proofs that support the round flat plane theory. Therefore…when you have the time to play…log onto atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Please review all 200 proofs…..write back to me and tell me that you were able to de-bunk all 200 proofs…remember…in order to completely de-bunk the flat earth theory…you “MUST” debunk all 200 proofs…are you ready for the challenge?…I look forward to your reply. Have a great day!
apollo11 RhooManu wgenske
I don’t know if “RhooManu” would want to take the time to look through that document, but I just downloaded it to see what it was all about. It would be better titled “200 Proofs That Eric Dubay Can’t Do Basic Geometry or Physics,” and looking through it I have yet to spot a “proof” that couldn’t be dismissed quite easily given just a minute or two. Most of these so-called “proofs” are not actually independent arguments at all, but are simply tiresome repetition of the same basic mistakes over and over and over again.
bobm73 apollo11 RhooManu wgenske eric dubay failed miserably debating my 7 and 11 year old nephews
eric dubay is so stupid he says that ‘if ssatellites existed the satellite dishes wouldnt point 45 degrees at empty sky they would all point straight up, instead they are pointing at the nearest tower’
ok so lets look at his ‘logic’ there is an invisible tower , higher then any tower on earth, so high passing clouds block the signal
and if it was a satellite every house in the world would have its own satellite parked straight above it
this is how eric dubay “thinks’
using his writings as proof only proves extreme gullibility and aversion tp thinking things through logically
soaringeagle bobm73 apollo11 RhooManu wgenske You have to hand it to Eric Dubay, he is tenacious and has built himself quite a cult.
I have seen his 200 proofs video and agree that not one of those proofs is valid when held up to scrutiny.
slymonster soaringeagle bobm73 apollo11 RhooManu wgenske eric dubay cant debate a 7 year old, i know i had my nephew debate him
he is so stupid he thinks that if satellites existed all satellite dishes would point straight up! as if every house in the world gets its own satellite
he most recently claims nuclear weapons have never existed!!
he is completely insane and very stupid
bobm73 apollo11 RhooManu wgenske Thanks for your reply bobm….you may have a point regards to the same basic mistakes…but all 200 of them?…..what about Nasa’s credibility?… do you honestly and truly believe that we have been told the truth and nothing but the truth since the Nasa program began?….the one sure thing I believe and would bet the farm on..is that Nasa is not entirely truthful……what about the fact that Nasa has released only “one” official true photo of the earth, which was taken in 1972?…almost 43 years ago…why does Nasa need to use go-pro or fish-eye lens?….The fact is…you and I, as well as all commentators have not personally viewed our planet from space…. all we have done is believe what we have been told…..one last question for you today…how old were you when you realized that Santa did not really exist….that it was all a lie……if our own parents can lie to us…then why is it so hard to believe that Nasa would be any different…. I look forward to your reply….have a great evening!
apollo11 bobm73 RhooManu wgenske
The shape of the Earth has nothing to do with NASA. This is a smoke and mirrors trick.
NASA has indeed released more then one photo of Earth from space. Several other space agencies/governments have also released photos.
I take it you have heard of NASA’s DSCOVR satellite that is now taking photos of the Earth daily, from about 1 million miles away. You must also have seen the photo’s released by China’s latest Rover, showing the Earth from the moon?
apollo11 bobm73 RhooManu wgenske
First, as I noted, there are actually NOT 200 independent proofs; I haven’t yet gone through and counted to see how many fall into each category, but there seem to actually be only about 4 or 5 basic claims, each repeated with slightly different details. I’ll try to post more on those when I’m able to complete that. But yes, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM is easily refuted.
Regarding NASA’s credibility: I’ve worked with NASA in my professional career, and you know what? They’re regular people, just like the rest of us. Occasionally they make mistakes. And occasionally they can’t reveal everything, which is as you would expect for any agency of a national government. But yes, in the overwhelming number of cases, NASA has been quite open and above board, and many of the claims of their opponents (and how much time do you spend actually investigating THOSE?) are simply wrong. For instance, there have been MANY “official” photos of the Earth released by NASA, including some quite recent ones. We haven’t had any taken on manned missions beyond low-Earth orbit since the early 70s for a very simple reason: THERE HAVEN’T BEEN ANY MANNED MISSIONS BEYOND LEO SINCE THAT TIME. But you’ll notice we HAVE had any number of photos from unmanned probes, including the famous “pale blue dot” photos from Voyager I and other deep-space missions:
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-pale-blue-dot-selfies-earth.html
apollo11 bobm73 RhooManu wgenske stop watchinjg conspiracy nutjob videos!
google photos of earth from space (google image) then nasa there are tens of thousands
there are live feeds from space from the iss
they dont use fisheye lenses!
now at low altitude you can only see a curve at a wide angle ..60 degrees at 50,000 feet
its not till your at iss height that you can see any curve with a 50 mm lens
santa does exist thats the only truth about christmass! christmass is not the celebration of christs birth (wich was in april if he was real) but the celebration of saturnalia, the festival of lights yule tide, the equinox etc all pagan holidays the lights the stockings the tree all pagan
santa clause is stanas klaus saint nikalaus
he was the patraint saint of mariers, a sort of poseiden like saint/diety he was known to put coins in the shoes of children who left their shoes outside his house
yup you been lies to all your life but not by nasa but by christianity
santa is real
but real dead
i believe he came from saudi arabia? somewhere in the middle east.. not the north pole
he was arabic i believe anyway
apollo11 bobm73 RhooManu wgenske
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/real-photos-of-round-earth-vs-composite-images-or-cgi/
check out the ultra hi def time lapse photos taken from a satellite
RhooManu wgenske When he gets done with that one, send him here:
http://www.clavius.org/site.html
wgenske soaringeagle deleted_93584417_shut ALL I know where you are coming from, I have seen all the evidence myself, even the paper moon documentary, and the one by the BBC meant to be a hoax, wink wink, but I would say the jury is still out until we have concrete evidence, like a third party to visit the landing site. However, the Flat Earth thing…..that is pure bull shit…Please note that for all we know, that could legitimately be a way for the government to discredit the moon landing conspiracy, by lumping everyone in with the flat earthers. In the same fashion that all alien conspiracy theorist are said to have tin foil hats.
Stop0000 wgenske soaringeagle deleted_93584417_shut ALL thousands of third parties have visited and photographed the landing site and so can you.. just get a reasonably good telescope.
google image search “proof we landed on the moon” or ‘tiretracks on the moon”
or just map of moon landing site .. just so you know what area of the moon to look at then take a close look yourself
you can see the evidence still there on the moon.. tiretracks a lander a rover A flag a science station and even footprints
you would need a very good telescope indeed and know exactly were to look but if you could find it it would be the ultimate proof.. theres even a laminated poleroid photo of 1 of the astronauts family.
don’t think anyone has ever spotted it that i know of though haha not sure even our best satellites can find it
but you can surely see that we were there
soaringeagle deleted_93584417_shut ALL BUT that is the thing, this new flat earth resurgence is causing all conspiracy theorist to be lumped together in the same category, I believe in conspiracies, that groups of people at different times in history have, and continue to manipulate things for greed and power, that is not a conspiracy as much as human nature. I would believe this whole flat earth thing to be a coin tel pro op, before I believe that all governments are guarding a magical barrier on the edge of a disc, that all heavenly bodies are some sort of hologram, and that we are trapped under a dome. (a dome of ignorance lol)
Stop0000 soaringeagle deleted_93584417_shut ALL thats so true
there are consoiracies that are likely to be true
there are some that are beyond a doubt true.. with overwhelming real evidence …and motive
a few good documentaries i recommend are ‘gashole’ gasland 1 and 2 and cowspiracy just came out on netflicks
the differences are some conspiracies have overwhelming evidence supporting them, and are ignored either for convinience or for greed
and others are just off the wall paranoid delusions
however the fact that some maybe or are real supports the paranoia wich makes the real conspiracy theorists look for more and more wild theories to believe
its the old “if they lied about this what else might they be hiding’
and you go from they are purposely causing a higher demand for oil to believing someone painted the universe on a dome
hmmm i wish we had access to a flat earthers email list
i’d love to send all of them an email saying “my uncle was a nobel prize winning physicist (include link to any random nobel prize winner) and he wants to come forward with proof the earth is flat, we would like to invest 23 million in a documentary to reveal this to the world please provide your name social security number all bank account numbers and routing numbers and we will begin the deposit immediately be sure you give us all your accounts info so we can split the deposits between accounts to make it harder to track the funding source to my uncle as he fears he will be killed for revealing this secret.
i have a feeling most would fall for that easily
that is provided they actually believe the stuff they say, wich often seems unlikely
shut ALL Here’s a great video on NASA and their lies about Mars! Just another CGI fantasy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2OASPsCr2s
shut ALL Research plasma fields and the Van Allen Belt. From what I have read, radio waves cannot travel through plasma fields. Yet, Apollo flew through all 3 belts and were giving crystal clear radio transmissions back to Earth. Funny how that worked!?
yardapekazoo68 shut ALL And they had Dr Van Allen (who discovered the belts and who they are named after) visit NASA to help them work out the safest way for the astronauts to fly through the belt. They flew through the belts very quickly and the amount of radiation they were exposed to was actually very little. As for communicating through these belts, I’m not sure what you have been looking for but we have GPS satellites in geosynchronous orbits that fly through the belts and we don’t have any trouble picking up their signals with our mobile phones.
So, not ‘funny how that worked’ rather than it worked as expected.
slymonster yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL I hate to break it to you, but have you ever “lost” signal on your phone? If so, your phone isn’t working off of a satellite. Cell phones are all ground based. Ever turn on your phone in an airplane? I have. No signal. Why? Ground based system. The entire “Dr. Allen helped the NASA navigate through the belts”, is total nonsense. Just because he discovered something, doesn’t mean he can navigate through it. That’s just more NASA lies.
yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL hate to break kit to YOU bujt yes cell phones are ground based (except satellite phones) but the gps on your phone is satellite based
the van ellen belt they didnt navigate through, they passed through it in under 2 minutes and received 0.001111% of what is considered a safe dose
satellite tv is satellite bassed, they have to have the dish pointed at an exact angle to get a signal, 1 degree off and signals weak or gone
a cloud or rain storm passes by and you lose signal..cause its satellite not ground based
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL Sorry, not buying it. If they were working off a satellite, it would be pointing up, not at a 30 degree angle. I can’t have the satellite TV because there’s too many trees where I live. Funny, you’d think all you have to do is point it up…………
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL really? have you thought that through? do you honnestly believe every house in the world has its own private satellite sitting directly above it?
satellites are expensive dude
theres like 1 satelite for every 3000 miles or so
thats why they point at a 30 degree angle where you are a 45 degree angle a thousand miles away
in fact every zip code has a very specific angle it points at then you move it 1 milometer at a time till you find the signal then very carefully movde it till yu got the stronget signal you can
you are pointing at a satellite that most likely is over the ocean
there is probably only about 12 that cover the entire world so where you are determines where you point the dish
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL You know there are a lot of you guys that think you know it all, yet you spell at a third grade level? What’s up with that? And no, I didn’t get that from Dubay. I suppose all you geniuses actually believe that during 911 all of those people actually called home from their cell phones at 10,000 ft. and that their wives just happened to record the whole conversation? Damn, there IS a sucker born every minute! And none of you know it all people have bothered to comment on that Mars video that I posted up above either! What’s wrong boys? To obvious of all the blatant lies that you just ignore that one? Spew some of your text book crap on that one………..
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL im disabled in pain needing a shoulder replacement so typing is extremely painful but my brain is far superiour to yours
ofcourse people being hijacked would call home
how many were actually recorded? 3? 5?
never heard of voicemail moron?
what mars video it was probly too stupid to watch
but way to sidetrack the convo when i prove you completely wrong and incapable of thinking logically
ok what special kind of stupid does it take to make you think pointing a satellite dish straight up would work
i assumed u got that from dubay cause that was 1 of his stupidest arguments and when i proved how stupid it was he blocked me rather then debate me
now back on track
go look at a satellite and then deny they exist
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL The only thing disabled is your walnut sized brain! Talk about deflecting! News flash dip wad, cell phones DO NOT work at 10k altitude! Like I said before, ever turn on your cell phone inside of a jet? Doesn’t work pin head! And who the fuck would just happen to record their spouses last words? Talk about a special kind of stupid…..got a mirror handy?
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL news flash idiot
cell phones work at any altitude jets have built in cell phones in busines class moron
and news flash 10k altitude is very low
jets fly at 30-45k
and cell phones work
the reason they sdont let you use them is the sygnals interfere with delicate electronics..but they certainly do work
and fuck off asshole
that 1st comment just proves your about as ignorant of n asshole as it gets
go fuck yourself moron
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL You just keep telling yourself that you ignorant fuck tard! Oh, and those red lines under your words mean that they are misspelled you ignoramus! But I guess they don’t have that feature in whatever CIA run, out of country troll station that you’re in! I can see your level of intelligence by how fast you resort to name calling! And if you had the smarts to remember the mainstream B.S. narrative, you’d have remembered that the reason that the cell phones had worked was because they were at such a low altitude before hitting the ground! But like I said, cell phones don’t work on jets especially at altitude. Once you’re above the ground based cell towers, they FAIL to work! Kind of like you trying to think!
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL You just keep telling yourself that you ignorant fuck tard! Oh, and
those red lines under your words mean that they are misspelled you
ignoramus! I can see your level of intelligence by how fast you resort to name calling!
yup sure can
now listen up and learn something moron
i spend alot of time deep in the wilderness in the mountains where cell signals dont reach cause we are typically on a ridge around 9700 feet
but guess what happens when you climb to the peak at 10k feet? the mountains no longer blocking the signal and you get 5 bars
yup works perfectly fine in jets
nothing to block the signals
dude im done with you you are literally retarxded incapablee of thinking and you still hve not addresed 1 single point in my list
every 1 of yoiur statements just gets dumber and dumber and you stop meven trying to mamke sense and just throw out insults
yup i can see the level of your inteligence by how quickly you give up on trying to make sense and resort to nAme calling…like the very 1st sentence
but hey.. flat earthers are great at pointing out their lack of inteligence
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL I’m glad you’re done with me. Too bad for you I work at an airport. I just happened to run into a pilot I know that has flown 747’s for over 30 years. He is now retired and does FAA check flights. I asked him today if the happened to know what altitude you had to be at when your cell phone stops working. He said between 4 or 5 thousand feet. Higher than that they are useless unless the plane you’re on is equipped with a miniature base station called a picocell. So unless your mountain is equipped with it’s very own cell tower, you are full of crap! Have fun in fantasy land!
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL
‘Who would record their spouses last words?’
This is the sort of asinine comment that just goes to show that certain people cannot do, what I like to call ‘joined up thinking’.
Lets look at this rationally. Who in the USA is in the best position to record cellphone transmissions. The user, no. The government, no. The cellphone network companies, yes. If you leave a voicemail on your friends cellphone, where is that message saved? On your friends phone, no. In the network providers servers, yes.
Now you have the information to join up your thinking up and answer the question yourself.
I have known people raise exactly the same question, a day after stating that the government records everything said over the cellphone networks. That should have been enough for them to consider where such a conversation may have been recorded. But they couldn’t join their thinking up either.
slymonster yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle deleted_93584417_shut ALL joined up thinking in many cases is missing 1 ingredient
the thinking
if you only have a hodge podge of random conspiracy theories to go on, no thought at all theres no thinking to join up
instead they attempt to make connections like saturn rockets and the pagan god saturn nasa and satan hell when windows 10 and the hololens were announced dozens of conspiracy theorists claimed it was the sign of the end times proof that microsoft was the anticrist and the winows logo the mark of the beast
years ago i had a freind (deceased now) who had a photographic memory so remembered everything she read word for word.. she read every religious book all the works of alister crowley (did alotta drugs too) and her mind mixed up all these beliefs into a hodgepodge psuedo sppirituality that ,led to insanity
thats the case with conspiracy theorists
they get obsessed with a conspiracy then look into others start connecting them together and…
end up insane
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL You can see the International Space station fly over head , but flat earthers deny that too, the whole of the secular world is a fraud, but their bible filled with contradictions and immoralities, that’s different even though it was chosen what books were going to be bound to it, during the council on Nicea 325AD, but no that is suppose to be the word of God, picked out by the committee.
Stop0000 soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL yea god runs a publishing company too.. and is a sick twisted mf i love the part about if a man comes to rape your slave you should offer your virgin daughter to be raped, then kill her and cut her up into peices
and isnt there a part about you should eat your children?
i’ve read a few things that just really made me wonder why anyone would choose that sort of god
there is so much cruelty
slavery
treating women as objects
alot of its designed to make people feel like sick disgusting creatures and only believing in the fairy tale can make you less vile
funny how they never read the parts about killing your children or beating your slaves in church
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL No I believe in the 911 conspiracy, too much evidence to deny, but thank you for pointing out that all conspiracy theorists now get lumped together with Flat earthers, two VERY DIFFERENT things in my opinion. and the government wins! zing!
Stop0000 yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL about 10% of 911 theories make sense
yes there was more then the official story
that is so clear
but conspiracy theories took it to wild laughable extremes
simple facts
bush was freinds and allies with bin laden he wanted a war he allowed it to happen .. how it happened planes hitting buuildings causing collapses that much was true
bush went to 2 wars..in the wrong countries knowingly he wasnjt after bin laden he was after oil
and contracts to rebuild
oh and his patriot act
he had an agenda
he was daddies boy after all
finish what daddy started
so yes some of 911 conspiracy stuff makes sense
most..not a bit
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL you got that argument from that idiot eric dubay ddn’t you .. why is it you never thought that through?
does that make any sense at all that every house would have a satellite straight up? classic flat earther logic and so easily proven false
in fact
buy a telescope..
find the exact position of the satellite that serves your area
get far away from any lights on a clear night and look for it..you will be able to see the satellite yourself
soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL Well, lets ponder that “why would you point the dish straight up” argument shall we? Is your special little satellite stationary or is it running freely across the planet? Do you even know? Kind of pointless to point your roof top dish towards a wondering satellite, so we can rule that out. Wouldn’t it be plausible that somebody some where on this “globe” would be living directly under your beloved satellite? I mean, somebody has to be living under one of your pathetic stationary satellites….
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL Like I said they are most likely out the sea or in the center of the country so yes, somebody would be directly under but 99% of people would not
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL
“Wouldn’t it be plausible that somebody some where on this “globe” would be living directly under your beloved satellite”
Not only is it plausible, but it’s true. However, anyone living directly under a geostationary (not just “geosynchronous,” which isn’t quite the same thing) satellite would have to be living on the equator. A few moments’ thought should tell you why this is so.
As to cell phones working on aircraft: they do. Including on aircraft operating at the normal flight levels for commercial airliners. But besides the potential for cell phone transmitters interfering with aircraft avionics, a very good reason as to why they are not permitted is that a cell phone operating from that altitude would be “seen” by too many separate ground based “cells” (the fixed stations which connect cell phones to the rest of the phone system – didn’t you ever wonder why they were called “cell” phones in the first place?) and thus cause problems for the cell system. The (automated) management of the cell system basically operates under the assumption that all the mobile nodes (the cell phones themselves) will be at roughly the same elevation – relatively close to the ground – and so can be “handed off” as needed from one cell to the next depending on the location of that mobile node.
The phones provided for use on board the aircraft operate through a completely separate, satellite-based system.
bobm73 yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL thank you for such a well explained “debunk”
not to take away from the awesome debates here but as i keep saying i would love for everyone with a brain to join us on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com even if you just post 1 flat earth argument to debunk, anything that you have specific knowledge on
ps we plan to expand to bunkdebunk in the near future once we have a good bit of the flat earth debunked bunkdebunked will cover a much wider range of paranoid delusions
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL in fact heres multiple ways to see and photograph satelittes yourself …do you dare seek actual truth?
https://www.google.com/search?q=ametuer+photos+of+satelites&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
yardapekazoo68 soaringeagle slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL Yeah, you don’t get it. The satellite antenna has a field of view, in its geo stationary orbit, if you aren’t pointing it in the relative direction, then you have no signal, the signal is not omnidirectional like your tv, which radiates 360 for up to 20 miles, because the signal continues into space after that and you can’t get it, therefore necessitating another antenna. Additionally the satellite signal has a finite amount of power to broadcast where as ground antennas are upgradeable. Remeber that radio waves are a form of radiation, light too same thing, stand in you room, turn on the light in the living room, and see if you can read a peice of paper, you cant, but if the light was in your room, then yes, but what if the light been was narrow like a laser beam (satellite signal) then you need to FACE THE FREAKING BEAM
yardapekazoo68 slymonster deleted_93584417_shut ALL soaringeagle
What the hell? I get GPS on my cellphone. It uses a different receiver to that it uses to communicate with the cellphone network. It is basically a totally different system. It has nothing at all to do with the ground based cellphone network. I can always get GPS on my phone when I am outside, whether I have cellphone coverage or not.
Your logic is amazingly flawed.
You REALLY, REALLY need to think before you make ludicrous claims that are in no way based on the real world. You just come off looking like an idiot.
As for your comment on the Van Allen belts, again, ludicrous. The belts were named after the guy who discovered them because he was the world’s leading expert on them. That is why he was brought in to advise NASA. He was the best person for the job. His knowledge has been used by many space agencies in many countries.
As for satellite dishes. Two points.
1. I live on the South coast of the UK. We have to pint out dishes out to sea. There is no ground based communication tower in that direction.
2. All dishes sold in the UK have the receiver below the centre of the dish. This is so that we can mount them to a wall. Basically it enables us to mount the dish more upright than we would be able to if the receiver was in the centre of the parabolic dish. If I recall correctly, the offset is about 15 degrees. This means that when we set the dish up to, lets say, 30 degrees. The receiver is picking up a signal that actually originated at 45 degrees. I assume this is similar in most countries.
There are no TV satellites over the UK, they are all over Europe, so we have to set our dishes at a relatively low angle rather than straight up.
Whether you ‘buy’ these explanations or not does not change the fact that these are FACTS. They cannot be logically argued with.
I am sure you will try.
Please do. You will again look very idiotic. So be my guest. Argue with these very simple facts.
slymonster yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL is there any way on here to block this idiot?
soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL
I don’t think there is unfortunately.
slymonster soaringeagle yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL he just crosses the line ..
but hey join us on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com
debating with flat earthers is poinless they need medication
but educating those who just stumble on this stuff before they get sucked in and made insane thats cruical
soaringeagle slymonster yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL
I can’t agree more. Let’s debunk this junk before more get sucked into this crazy ‘cult’.
yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL Of course, the minor problem with this “theory” is that the Van Allen belts AREN’T significant “plasma fields.” And you can quite easily demonstrate that radio waves can make it through the belts (twice, even!) by simply conducting Earth-Moon-Earth (EME, or “moon bounce”) communications, something that amateur radio operators do every day.
What’s really funny is how pretty much ALL of the “flat earth” and similar conspiracy-theory arguments are based on the fallacious “argument from ignorance” model: “I personally don’t understand how such-and-such could work, therefore it didn’t!”
bobm73 yardapekazoo68 deleted_93584417_shut ALL join us on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com lets put ignorance out of its misery
I have been looking into the Flat Earth Theory for only a couple of days. My comment here is not for or against the theory. I will say that the moon landing video has been admitted to be a complete forgery. I can not believe that none of the conspiracy individuals use the video I am going to post here. The lighting in space makes it impossible to capture videos from the moon. Sorry to tell you that the pictures you posted are fake but it is true. Do not believe me? Listen to Rumsfield tell you then. If you have the time, I recommend you watch all six parts of the video.
http://youtu.be/qUOItuKm5UE
Randycg40 watch this
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/moon-landing-hoax-hoax/
it roves that at the time it was far easier to go to the moon then it was to fake it’
I’ve been studying information from the International Flat Earth Society set up by Eric Dubay. Not the controlled opposition group “The Flat Earth Society”. Watch “Under the Dome” on youtube as well by googling “Flat Earth Clues”. Very interesting subject. Makes you question what we’ve been taught and told.
Those of you know that governments and media lie to us. This could be another example of that. Have a look. Don’t worry, you don’t have to tell anyone that you are researching it.
JeffDelagado I have been watching all those videos on youtube as well, and have found nothing substantial to contradict the round earth. In fact look closely at the comments and you may see my scathing critique of their lack of evidence, and their paper theories which when in doubt require you to believe in a creator for them to be workable. So they are attacking a global agreed upon system for finding the truth (science) saying they don’t “believe it” yet they believe in the bible…or their version of it, because if the bible were to be taken literal on every account, we would still have gender inequality, slavery, incest, and other great contributions. So please tread carefully on this subject matter.
Stop0000 JeffDelagado This Kubrick “mockumentary” is the biggest bunch of BS…IT WAS A JOKE! You make yourself look foolish posting it. They have interviews in it with Jack Torrence and Dave Bowman for Christs sake.
JeffDelagado eric dubay is the biggest idiot and fraud on the planet and all he wants is a cult likde following
the only way you can be deprogrammed from cult programming is if you are cut off from it completely
now stop watching his cult programming vids study the facts test your own theories and realize he is an imbecile and a fraud
If the earth is spinning at 1,000 mph while circling the sun at 67,000 mph and the galaxy is moving at 560,000,000 mph, how can we see the same constellations after 6000 years of human history observing them?
JeffDelagado Keep this in mind. It takes our solar system almost 250 Million years to orbit the Galactic center. 6000 years out of 250 million is almost nothing. It’s completely understandable that we can still see them. I don’t see how the spin and orbit speeds of the Earth, and the speed that the Milky Way is moving at affect how we see the constellations.
EthanBierlein JeffDelagado and they are billions of light years away, our movement around our sun and within our galaxy in relationship to the universe is like a single atom spinning around the head of a pin’
it would take millions of years of observation to see any star change relative location to any other by 1/100000th of a degree
however in the past 6000 years we have observed in other ways besides just looking up
so we can detect the sped the uni9verse expands at
how fast stars move out from the center and around the center
to put it into perspective
look at the milky way
billions and billions of stars in our galaxy
lets assume that all are moving at about 550,000,000 miles per hour
if you can visualy tell 1 star from another that are right next to eachother they would probable take 100,000 years for them to move (for the 1 moving in the direction of the other to get to the location of where that star was 100,000 years ago)
also keep in mind , we are spinning with them so only the stars at the center of the galaxy are moving faster (due to their proximity to a super massive black hole)
so our view of all except a tiny number of stars in our galaxy will ne ver changte as we move with them
our entire galaxy is 100,000 light years across
those are the stars you see jumbled together in our milky way
the nearest stars in constellations outside our galaxy are so much farther away that to them our galaxy, the entire galaxy would look like a faint slightly blurry star
look at orions belt theres a galaxy in there thats how tiny we are in relationship to the universe
so our spinning galaxy ..as i said is like an atom spinning round the head of a pin .. within our galaxy
do you think that atom would see changes in the galaxy stars locations over thousands of years/
what you see as 560,000,000 miles an hour is us out at an outter arm we would take 220-250 million years to revolve one time around our galaxy
so
maybe the dinasaurs saw a slightly diferent sky…
but they kept it a secret
JeffDelagado Constellations change their daily starting positions slowly in the sky.This is called the precession of the equinox and takes 26000 years. We see the same constellations regardless because all things in our vantage point in the galaxy is all orbiting one another. Wait long enough (millions of years) and it does change.
BTW those speeds and numbers you mention are dwarfed by the enormous distances separating us from the constellations. Even the speed of the orbit (which by the way is relative), is a small figure when the closest star, the alpha centauri system is 4.24 light years, or 4.24 (years) now add up the number of seconds in those years….133712640 sec. now multiply times speed of light 186,000 per second. and that is how far the closest star is, let alone the closest constellation which is still even further. Read for the win.
Stop0000 JeffDelagado exactly they act like 150 million mph is so fast when it takes 250 million years to revolve once
just like the 1000 mph spinning of the globe
when you look at it as rpm revolutions per minute you ould be better off expressing it as rpd or revolutions per day wich is approximatly 1
now take a wheel, and spin it so fast that it spins once per day.. doesn’t seem so fast now does it?
the earth is pretty big so the equater moves at about 1000 mph but its still soooo slow it takes a day to spin once
the galaxy is so big at 150 million miles an hour it takes 250 million years to spin once
dont get caught up in mph
especially when thinking of distances in the trillions of miles
just think about the incredibly slow rpm
how very very long it takes to move just 1 time around
soaringeagle Stop0000 JeffDelagado The only thing I want to contest is the speed of the solar system around the galaxy, I just don’t agree with the number 550,000,000 mph that was used. I do this only because a more moderate 550,000 mph is more believable. We know that light travels at approximately 186000 miles per second. We multiply this number by 60 to get miles per minute, then multiply by 60 again to get mph, which gives us the number 669,600,000. We then divide 669,600,000/550,000,000and get1.217. This translates to the speed of light traveling only 21.7% faster than our solar system. We know that the galaxy is 100,000 light years across. Using the formula 2(pi)r we get that the circumference of the universe is 628,318 light years around. It would take light that long to get around the galaxy. It will take the solar system an additional 21.7% that time, or 764,663 years to travel around. Not 250 million.
Please don’t mistake my criticism of your numbers used for an argument for a flat earth, I merely wish that correct numbers are to be used when explaining how large the galaxy is. I know that 550 million isn’t the actual speed of the solar system, but any number more than 100 million is just too far off, and my OCD dictates that I address this number.
terrorabsolute soaringeagle Stop0000 JeffDelagado you are correct ofcourse that was just a number a flat earther threw out there i never bothered to check it i just translated it into a more accurate revolutions per scale
1 revolution per every 250 million years is slooooooowwwwww
Correct? Mmmmmm. Prove your numbers please….oh you never been or seen the 250 million light years ?The bigger the number the more pathetic the
Austruth ummm no offence but…what?
i have read your comment 8 times now, i can usually guess at what people mean when english isn’t their 1st or 2nd language
i have tried to rearrange your words over and over trying to figure out what you are trying to say
i assume you are using a poor translator?
if you do speak english can you try to restate that in a way we can understand what you are saying?
Tried to edit but didn’t let me . The reason for the reply was you’ve never been or Se en this huge place we call a universe first hand so you only go off what you’ve bed told . How the fuck would you know how fast our galaxy is travelling ? Because some old bearded guy with glasses told you ?So don’t make out those numbers are right !!
Austruth you know that thousands and thousands of scientists have studied it, tens of thiusands have scrutinized it for any mistakes hundreds of thousands have verified it and millions of students have learned from that , made their own obseervations and not 1 has found any evidence to suggest otherwiswe
so what makes you think they are wrong?
We are supposedly traveling through the universe at ridiculous rates yet the stars haven’t changed ever. That’s why sailers can navigate off them . If we were traveling at 660,000 miles per hour wouldn’t it be logical that they would noticeably change ?
Austruth do you have any idea how many times i have answered this ridiculous question this week (it’s not ridiculous unless you think about it then its absurd)
the galaxy is 100,000 light years across it rotates at 1 tiame every 250 billion years
mph is stupid way to look at things that are hundreds of trillions of miles away.
so look at the milky way that is our galaxy any 2 stars that appear so close they can barely be distinguished from eachother will take hundreds of thousands of years to move but we are rotating with them so never will see any movement
now look at orions belt.
in orions belt there is a galaxy, a faint star , that is an entire galaxy
that is how tiny we are..our galaxy spinning at the incredibly fast rate of 1 revolution every 250 billion years is a tiny lil dot in relation to all the other stars out there
so in the time of the dinosaurs a couple stars might be a millionth of a degree off from where they are now
but if they were they kept it a secret just so you can believe nasa lies
stop thinking mph is fast in a galactic or universal sense when to write the number of miles it would take to see the tiniest shift in a single star would be the longest post on here and the number of years to move that far hundreds of billions
think instead of how long it takes the galaxy to revolve once or the universe
these facts can be easily looked up using google
the flat earth cult likes to confuse you by making you think 660,000 mph is fast when really its incredibly slow in relationship to the universe
Do you know that you sound even as crazy as a flat earth guy? It is no such thing as light years. It is no proof of the earth being round or flat. Even newtons book he doesn’t even know it’s a bunch of “what if” I’m not saying it’s flat I’m not saying it’s round. I’m just saying you and many others only go off of what another person think but no one knows! Crack me up when people talk light years like they have travel threw space.
H
I agree, I found it extremely funny both flat earth and round earth act as if they can prove it. Round earth base everything off of what they was told since a child flat earth seem to not believe in what they was told since a child.
vvsberg well ,gues what many round earthers have proven it aned guess what the reason your told that in schools is because it is proven
but lets see how do flat earthers prove its flat?
eliminate gravity, move the sun shrink it by trillions of times its real size
put up an ice wall or a dome
build an invisible army of millions to guard the wall or dome
claim they can see a tiny sun farther away thenj a giant coastline
and still claim its perspective
they prove it by making no sense and telling lies
we can prove its round with logic observation calculation and no need to move the sun, put up a dome or claim ewe are held down by magnatism or density 2 incredibly stupid ideas
yup we proved it and you just sound like whackos
TyroneGale huh? how far does light travel in a year thats a light year.. i sound crazy and you make that statement/
theres undeniable proof its round.. measured to with a degree orf acuracy of 1 centimeter… no proof? ha
newtons book isnt a collection of what if its a collection of it is…
you dont know whhat you are talking about
what about light years don’t you understand
Austruth you do know that scientists have been studying it since prehistoric times? before they had telescopes they built observatories of sorts out of rocks
its not some old bearded guy with glasses its the sum of all human knowledge over tens of thousands of years or longer
Austruth
http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301/lectures/mw_size/mw_size.html
There you go, and there’s no math in there more difficult than a couple of logarithms.
So if you don’t think these numbers are right, please tell us where in the above they go wrong.
So that proves we are travelling at 660,000 miles per hour yet we don’t see it in our constellations
Austruth again stop thinking in miles per hour over such massive distances in order to see even tiny tiny diference in constelations would take hundreds or thousands off billions of years
What you need to do is work out how far we have travelled in the last 500 years then think to yourself…should those stars have changed position ? I tell you now it’s a HUGE number!!
Austruth really why dont you work it out for us? i’ll tell you that it is immeasurably tiny
can you measure thousands of trillionths of 1 degree?
but lets see you work out the math if you can
Austruth
Re:
“What you need to do is work out how far we have travelled in the last 500 years then think to yourself…should those stars have changed position ? I tell you now it’s a HUGE number!!”
I’ll work this out in a moment, but first let me ask – why should >I< “need” to work this out for you? Why can’t you do this for yourself? It’s funny how the flat-Earth herd likes to accuse their opponents of simply “taking science on faith,” and yet I don’t see a single one of you who appears to be either willing or able to do these very simple observations and calculations for yourself. Why is that? Why are YOU simply accepting what someone else is telling you? I’ve said all along – NOTHING I say here needs to be taken just on my say-so; it is all very, very easy to demonstrate and calculate for yourself. You just have to be willing to put in a little bit of effort, and also not being afraid to face the truth when it comes out at the end of that process.
And had you been paying attention, you would see that I ALREADY worked this out. As noted within this particular discussion, the speed of our solar system in orbit around the center of the galaxy (about 514,000 MPH) would get you to the nearest star, 4.24 light-years away, in a little over FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS. So if you’re asking how far we’d go in just 500 years, hopefully it’s pretty obvious that it’s going to be something less than a tenth of that distance, or around 0.4 light years. And on the cosmic scale, that’s nothing. Keeping in mind that the rest of the stars in the vicinity are moving at about the same speed and in the same direction as we are, the relative change in their positions would be even smaller. So no, we would NOT expect the constellations to change significantly in just 500 years. Or in other words – sure, it sounds like a “HUGE number.” But there are other numbers involved here which are FAR larger, and you are simply not used to dealing with things on this scale.
Hence, what you’re doing here is what’s called an “argument from ignorance” – which basically is something of the form, “Well, >I< don’t understand how this works, therefore it’s wrong.” Not really much of an argument when you put it that way, is it?
bobm73 Austruth
auslie
i’ll let bob do the math he is better at it
but i will just give you a visual way to picture what you are asking
take 1 hydrogen atom
the electron, lets slow that down so that it takes 250 billion years to revolve once
from that electrons perspective would all the stars..in our galaxy alone change in a mere 500 years?
that hydrogen atom roughly represents our size in relationship to our galaxy, that our galaxy does in relation to the universe
now ofcourse thats without calculating anything its just for visual reference you expect huge diferences when our movement is very slow on a extremely tiny scale compares to that of the universe
like i said i haven’t calculated or even estimated it could be as large as a grape
but the point is that you think the numbers your told are huge numbers but compared to the numbers in a universal scale they are extremely small
terrorabsolute soaringeagle Stop0000 JeffDelagado
Yes, that’s just an error of adding a few zeroes. The best number I could find for the average speed of the solar system around the galaxy is about 514,000 MPH. And yes, 250 million years for once around seems like a long time, but then it’s a LONNNNNNNNNNG way around! Better to take the short cut through the center, but it looks to be a pretty iffy neighborhood in there… 😉
bobm73 terrorabsolute soaringeagle Stop0000 JeffDelagado it will take a long assed time to get from 1 side to the other even if we manage near light speed travel someday the best way to get from 1 side to the other is calculate how long it would take… 100,000 years if we were at light speed 200,000 more likely, determine how much the other side would come towards us, use the gravity pull of the center to skirt its edge on the side towards its rotation
it will only save a couple million miles, maybe a few but its slightly shorter and you wont get caught in that big black hole
soaringeagle bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado And let’s do a couple of those quick calculations I like to recommend, just to see where we stand.
The moon is about 240,000 miles away. (And please DO NOT take my word for it; this distance is easily verified, at least to a reasonably good percentage error, from your own backyard, using relatively simple equipment.) The sun is about 93,000,000 miles away (ditto), and Saturn (the farthest planet easily seen) is at opposition a bit over 800,000,000 miles away. So at 514,000 MPH (the number I quoted above):
The Moon is 28 minutes, or just about half and hour, away.
The Sun is 181 hours away, or a but over a week, away.
Saturn is at least 1556 hours, or a bit over two months, away.
And these are just objects in our own backyard, astronomically speaking. The nearest star besides the sun (Proxima Centauri, one of the three stars making up what we call Alpha Centauri) is about four and a quarter light-years away; in miles, that’s about 2.5 x 10^13. And at 514,000 MPH, you could cover that distance in 48.6 MILLION hours, or just about 5,550 years.
3500 BC is getting darned close to the beginning of recorded history. So at the speed we’re talking about, it would take you just about the entire time that humans have been writing things down to get from here to Proxima Centauri. And that’s just the star closest to our own sun. Again don’t take my word for it; the distance to another star was first determined in 1838, so again this clearly isn’t something that takes much in the way of modern equipment to do.
Unless, of course, you’re afraid to find out the truth.
And speaking of Saturn – I have always wondered just how it is the flat-Earth herd explains the appearance of that planet (or even worse, the Jovian system) through even the simplest of telescopes!
bobm73 soaringeagle terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado flattards will say that every star every planet every galaxy is either painted on the dome, or, projected using led projectors (they say the moons a hologram too funny how cavemen drew pictures of the moon at a time when fire was the limit of all technology but somehow we had an advanced holo generator that has worked for hundreds of thousands of years without a glitch)
soaringeagle bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado
“…but somehow we had an advanced holo generator that has worked for hundreds of thousands of years without a glitch)”
Even funnier when you realize the we don’t have holographic projectors anywhere NEAR that good today, nor any hope of having them in the near future. (Hint, people: “Star Trek” really IS just a TV show.)
There are quite a few other problems with the whole “painted on a dome” nonsense, most of which would be readily apparent to anyone who had managed to pass high-school geometry. I guess they’re just not really thinking very deeply at all about this stuff.
I know I’m not the smartest guy but I think logically. I see whole islands From 33 miles away( google earth gives me the distance ). If it wasn’t for the 8 inches squared formula I would never be questioning the world we live in/on
Austruth
“I know I’m not the smartest guy but I think logically. I see whole islands From 33 miles away( google earth gives me the distance ). If it wasn’t for the 8 inches squared formula I would never be questioning the world we live in/on”
I understand you’re trying to think logically, but using that “8 inches per mile squared” formula isn’t helping you any. The biggest problem – it’s the wrong formula for what you’re trying to do. You don’t want to know how far the surface of the Earth (sea level) drops away from a supposed tangent line, you want to know the distance to the visible horizon. The approximate formula for THAT is
D (miles) = SQRT(H)*1.35 (if H is in feet).
Let’s assume your eyes are at 10 feet above sea level (I’m assuming your feet AREN’T exactly at sea level, that you’re seeing these islands from some distance back from the shoreline proper). In this case, your visible horizon is about 4.3 miles away. So how much of an island 33 miles away could you see? Well, obviously you could see any part of that island which is greater than H above sea level, where H is the height above sea level that results in a visible horizon that’s 33-4.3 = 28.7 miles away. And THAT would be:
(28.7/1.35)^2 = 452 feet.
So you could see any part of the island higher than 452 feet above sea level. This, of course, assumes no atmospheric effects between you and the islands; if you add in the possibility of refraction through the air, all bets are off (within reason) regarding how far away an object of a given height might be.
Of course, if you increase your own height-above-sea-level, the situation changes dramatically. Let’s say you’re actually observing from your hotel room, a few floors up in a hotel across the street from the beach. Maybe your eyes are 90 feet above sea level, in which case YOUR visible horizon is almost 13 miles away, and you’ll see anything on the island that’s more than about 220 feet above sea level.
You didn’t mention what islands you’re talking about, or where you’re viewing them from, but I suggest you play with this formula a bit (and look at a topo map of the islands in question) and see if it makes more sense.
I know how the numbers work and I only do my views from as close to water level as I can waves permitting . The island is 1790 ft . Curvature should be about 800 yet I can see all of the island . I could also see the bottom of a ferry from 6 miles (24 feet) the whole ferry would only be that in height . These are the things that are keeping me confused about what shape we live on
Austruth
Again, wrong “curvature” formula (i.e., the “800 foot” value is the wrong number). And I still have to assume you are NOT observing the island with your eyes at sea level, right?
Ditto the ferry; with your eyes again at the assumed 10 feet above sea level, you could see any part of the ferry that was more than about a foot and a half above the water. From 6 miles away, that’s going to be pretty much the whole thing, right?
6 – 4.3 = 1.7
(1.7/1,35)^2 = 1.59 feet
Drop your eyes to just 5 feet above the water, and you’ll still see everything on the ferry that’s more than that same distance – 5 feet – off the water.
And one very clear example: the island of Cuba is just 94 miles (at the closest point, near Havana) from Key West, Florida. No part of Havana – or any part of the island of Cuba at all – is visible from Key West under any conditions. The highest point on the island is over 6700 feet above sea level (but 450 miles from Key West). If the Earth’s surface doesn’t curve, then why is this so?
Stop assuming. I am 2 feet above at most to account for the waves . I keep returning to this spot early morning to get a completely flat ocean . As for Cuba we can only see so far can’t we . The Chicago – Michigan bay I believe is 50-60 miles yet you can see all of the buildings . Explain that?
Austruth buildings are tall
And you can see all of them . A conservative 1600 ft would be the curvature
Austruth and no we cannot only see so far look up see all those stars trillions of miles away? the sun 94 million miles away?
your vision is infinate but objects get smaller the farther away so at trillions of miles you can only see massive objects like stars
but there is no limit to how far you see besides the speed of light and age of the uiverse
that limits how far you can see to 14.5 billion light years
At ground level you can only see so far . Ocean spray . Dust… Sometimes I can’t see that island 33 miles away at all because the crap in the air . Australia is very hazy where I am from and very humid
Austruth Ah, so you’re in Australia! Excellent – then could you please explain something to me? How is it, if we’re living on a flat Earth, that you can see the Southern Cross and I (living in the United States) cannot? Or why you’re in the middle of springtime right now, and headed for summer, while I’m looking out at a nice crisp fall day with the start of winter just about a month away?
Have you seen the mechanics of the flat earth model with the sun and the moon ? Like yin and yang spinning around but not staying on one latitude they move up and down to create the seasons .
Austruth I haven’t seen a specific model that behaves the way you describe; if you can provide a link to such a description, I would certainly appreciate it. I’m having a good deal of trouble, though, imagining how anything like that could account for the seasons if the Earth were, in fact, a flat plane, especially with the descriptions I’ve seen (which seem to always represent the “flat Earth”) as what we would conventionally call a north polar projection. But if that’s the case, then as you noted there are some VERY serious problems regarding how travel around Antarctica should behave, compared with how we know it DOES behave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY . Just to let you know I’m not fully on board with this model as when I look out my window I don’t see what they tell me I should see . Hope that link works as i am on my I phone
Austruth have you actuaqly watched that and thought about what you are watching/
that has a summer/winter transition every single day
epic fail
soaringeagle Austruth It also has no explanation for the southern hemispheres summers. When you can get daylight that is close to 16 hours in the southern tip of South America and South Africa.
slymonster soaringeagle Austruth exactly its just another silly diagram to fool the gullible
hy
the sound on this sucks but u will appreaciate how simply i debunked this bunk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4IRrX4fnlM
i explainedd that to 1 guy 10 times in a row he still kept repeating the question so i gave him a simple visual aid
Sorry but that doesn’t prove shit .
Austruth it proves its a curve, not a fisheye lens like they claim but an actual curve
That to me looks like a fish eye lens to be real with you.
TyroneGale then hows it look exactly straight like the inside photo thats clearly not a fisheye
and fisheye would distort the capsule too not only the horizon
That is not a simple visual end of the day you can’t believe everything you have seen. Because it’s clear to me all moon landings are fake these visual but yet people like you will still believe it. I don’t believe in the round or flat because no one can prove both!
vvsberg ok so if its so clear to you its fake how did the tiretracks get there the footprints the rover lander and science station all of wich can be seen with a good telescope
i think tiretracks on the moon prove we were there dont you
My guess is just maybe the world is actually bigger than what we have been told that’s why no one have ever seen the curve that video does nothing. If we been in space and travel 2015 we should be seeing wonderful real pictures daily! We should be traveling to the moon easily take new up to date photos of the moon. Building a station on the moon studying from the moon! After all the was driving b go karts lol playing golf having a great fime lol it never happemd sorry
vvsberg Yeah. Except round earth and man on the moon have been totally proved.
vvsberg We do get new pictures of Earth every day.
vvsberg Re: “My guess is just maybe the world is actually bigger than what we have been told”
Why guess? Why don’t you simply figure it out for yourself? The size of the Earth was fairly accurately measured over 2000 years ago by the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes, using nothing more complicated than a couple of sticks and calculations that anyone could perform today on a basic calculator. NO ONE has to accept ANY of this simply because it’s what you’ve “been told” – in each and every case, the information you’ve been told “by science” can be independently verified by anyone. Why don’t you DO that, and actually KNOW something?
bobm73 vvsberg but they accept withoit question the word of idiots that just claim you have been liesd to all ypur life..i have the truh..it makes no sense but its the truth
thats how cults form
vvsberg it is the size they say it is to a degree of acuracy of 1 cm over the entire globe
we do see photos alnmmost daily videos all the time and live fucking streams even you can see the earth in real time from space
they are planning lunar and mars colonies in 15 years these take a hell of slot of planning
they have taken photos of earth from as far as saturn
stop watching conspiracy lies and go lookk at the truth
the photos are getting more and more high def as technology improves
Why do you think all sudden they claim they will go to Mars but it’s a catch. When they send man man will have to live there life on Mars till death.why? Because they won’t make the mistake like they done before having man come back and get questioned.
vvsberg “Why do you think all sudden they claim they will go to Mars but it’s a catch. When they send man man will have to live there life on Mars till death.why?”
Where did you get THAT notion? Yes, there has been ONE group which has been talking about how to send someone to Mars with no plans to return – but that’s very, very different from saying that anyone going to Mars would HAVE to “live on Mars until death.”
Austruth Wow. There are SO many things wrong with that model I don’t know where to begin.
First of all, this implies a very small Sun – in this model, what IS the Sun, how is it lit, where is the heat coming from? Spectrographic analysis provides pretty conclusive proof that the Sun IS a fusion reactor, and some very simple parallax measurement can easily show it to be about 93,000,000 miles away – how does this model account for those?
And why, in this model, should we expect the Sun to illuminate only that small portion of the Earth underneath it? Why is the rest of the plane below this little Sun shown in darkness? That makes no sense at all – even if we were to attribute some attenuation to the atmosphere, you should still be able to at least SEE something that inherently bright from any spot on the presumed flat Earth. Either that, or you should not be able to see the stars, EVER. You simply can’t have it both ways.
Further – what is imagined to keep the Sun moving in this circular path above the flat Earth? Why doesn’t it simply fall to the ground?
There is still absolutely no good accounting for the seasons in this model, either, nor for the motion of the Sun relative to the stars and the moon and the other planets. And just try to explain the illumination of the moon – let alone either solar or lunar eclipses – with this sort of model.
This is an incredibly complicated and inherently very flawed attempt to explain just one aspect – while ignoring so many others – when all can be accounted for very easily in the conventional model.
bobm73 Austruth bob just to explain flat thinking i will tell you some of the way flat earthers have explained these things to me (btw we really need you on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com ifu didnt join yet, but i think u did right? if so…post!)
ok
some claims the suns between 3000 miles 70 miles and 1 even said..below the clouds!
the suns not a nuclear reactor (some claim theres no such thing nuclear reactors nuclear bombs.all faked)
1 said the sun doesnt have heat, it doesnt emit light instead the earths magnetism pulls the light out of it like a spotlight (wonder why that spotlight isnt drawn just to the poles)
stars dont actually exist they are led projections on the dome, or painted on the dome and the dome moves
as for all thde measurements calculations etc ‘lies from nasa have you verifiesd it yourself/ no? you cant’
they have an answer for everything, they dont make sense but they are crazy enough to think they do
your here in a rather sheltered discussion of the topic, with mostly inteligent people and a couple who are a bit confused
go on youtube where every discussion on flat earth has about a 50/50 thumbs up vs thumbs down ratio wheree 1/2 the people believe the earth is flat and have the most insane arguments
oh as for the moon
1 side says its a hologram
1 side says it has its own light source
even saying the dark side provides more heat then the light
thier arguments are ..very very strange
gravity doesnt exist its eitherr density, or elecro magnatism that holds us to the earth
warning
try not to watch their videos
you lose 2 iq points every 3 minutes and each vids over an hour long
What you need to do is ring Mark Seargent up and ask him a few Q’s on his talk back shows . I’d love to here your debate him . I am yet to here anyone with some IQ on both sides of the argument on the same line do this . No point debating me . I don’t know enough
Austruth who is that never heard of him is he a flat earthder
i can think logically enough to debate any flat earther but so can my 6 year old nephew
but i can find a ton odf people, like bob far more qualified to absolutely destroy them with calculations formulas and overabundance of facts
I doubt that if your into debunking flat earth so if it’s going to be easy you let me know and I’ll listen to that call
Austruth give me the number but seriusly anyone in 5th grade can debunk the flat earth
because its all bunk
however i will turn it over to people who know more then me to be more thorough
I have grave doubts that we ever put men on the moon. Why has NASA been unable to find the tapes? (Or, written over them, destroyed them, whatever its excuse was for this grossly irresponsible act.) Why did Wernher von Braun suddenly make a trip to Antarctica in 1967, when he was in the midst of planning for the great moon landing? (Hmm, this trip could explain why the “moon rocks” have been found to be chemically identical to meteorites from Antarctica.) And, most important, why have we never been back? Instead, we’ve had massive disasters just trying to put a shuttle into Earth orbit. Geez, how come the technology was so much better in 1968 than it is today? We saw, in “Apollo 13,” these engineers computing orbits with slide rules, by golly!
DID NOT require that 400,000 people keep their mouths shut. NASA and mission control have so many specialized positions that as long as person A does what person A does, and B does his or her job, then only when you get to the top of project do a select few people – probably fewer than 100 – need to know the real deal. That’s true for ANY fabrication on a large scale. It happens all the time, in business, government, down to mom and pop shops – how do you think investment companies pull off Ponzi schemes? Does the receptionist know? Do ALL of the auditors know? Of course not. This is not a matter of science, it’s a matter of manipulating and controlling others. I beg you to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye and you will at least come away scratching your head. And not just the Fox TV Special – there are dozens if not hundreds of people who have done their homework. Read a few books on the subject. The motive was there. Use your head – if a modern day calculator has more computing power than did the lunar module…..and there are NASA scientists today who, if caught off guard, will say that we don’t have the technology to get through the Van Allen belts. Not now, not then. And tell me one good reason why the Russians never went. Just one. Adolf Hitler once said that if you tell a big enough lie for a long enough time, people will believe it. One day we will know the truth. But I fear that by then, no one will care.
You people put to much faith in NASA. It is no real proof of a globe or a flare plain.
Austruth i just looked him up watched 60 secons of 1 nvideo he debunks himself
thde guys a clueless moron “why are there no photos of earth from space?” umm cause there are hundreds of thousands
‘why do planets disapear below the equater’ umm cause its a ball and you see a iferent sky below the equater
how hard is it to debate that
yiu think that morons convincing? really?
have you thought about what he says for even 1 second?
yea i dont need anyone smarter then me to debate him haha
it requires no thoght at all
the guys a fraud
That what people like me need . A smart guy like you to take him on and change my minds .
Austruth steven hawkings couldnt change their minds
its not their minds but their brain chemistry that needs changing
i use this example alot
if a 6 foot tall 600 pound black woman thinks she is napolean, she wil deny her own image in the mirror is her
it isnt that these people are just dumb or mislead, they are paranoid and delusional
you see there are 1000000 photos of earth from space but they deny every 1 of them is real
they need a psychologist to give them years of therapty and most likely medications
its not an idea its an obsession a delusion
it defines who they think they are
you cant change that with facts only psychology
Anyway…debate Mark Seargeant or Jeranism . They both take calls and will be over the moon( pun intended ) to take someone on
Austruth give me the numbers
both of them are idiots and frauds
so would love to expose them
but ya know ..they wont ever air it only crap that supports thier brainwashing never anyone who proves them wrong
but like i saidd give me the numbers ill call them and invite them to go to the south pole
ya know what? i’ll get them to the moon if they raise enough cash for the trip
I don’t know their numbers! https://youtu.be/m7vzPBmdheA
Austruth thats not taking calls its scripted self promotion
Tell me which of these are the real earth ?
Austruth all
Don’t treat me like a fucken dickhead!!. NASA is the one you should be scathing . 2007 and 2013 photos are completely different to the rest . On the 1972 photo on close ups you can see cloud cloning had been done . On some photos North America is bigger . Only explanation is photoshop.
Austruth wrong
1972 was many images stitched together
the continent sizes changing is cause itsa ball and the photos are not taken from the same position
change the angle change the distortion caused by a curve
think dude think
this is not hard at all t think through
if it were flat the sizes would nevefr change
but on a ball you change theposition you take the shot from the sizes change
photograph a globe from dig]gferent angles…see for yourself
soaringeagle Austruth
You also have the fact that different cameras were used. Different ‘ordinary’ cameras can represent the same thing as slightly different colours. Remember the online battle over the colour of ‘that dress’?
When you are looking at NASA photos you have to realise that often NASA wants to ‘see’ different things, so some photographs display certain wavelengths of light that we ordinarily would not see with the naked eye. NASA is a scientific organisation after all, not a tourist operation.
slymonster soaringeagle Austruth not to mention, basic photography
light has a range from warm to cool most cameras set the white ballance automatically by taking a best guess based on a range from black to white
for real accurate measurements you need a grey card
thats kinda hard to do in space wich requires you holding a grey card in fngt of the camera wich measures the warmth of the light source based on a true grey
so since that cant be done the colors can be more orangeish to blueish or anywhere in between the colors are only 100% accurate is when you measure the exact white balance
I don’t understand how you people can believe those pictures are real lol that’s as crazy as a flat earth junky
I got to hand it to guys . You know everything about everthing . Astrology , photography , refraction , geometry . Geology . Hope you are all earning heaps of cash as know it alls. Why your wasting your time On here I don’t know . Anyway…that photograph statement has taken the cake for me . There’s only so much BS I can cop before I say no more .
Austruth i know very little bob knows physics and math i suck at both
i am a photographer i am a pilot i am a naturalist i spend months in the wilderness so i am verry very in touch with mother earth
i have been watching satelites since i was 4
i am very inteligent and logical yet mostly self educated
most people (except flat earthers) know more then me about many subjects but some subjects im an expert on
Austruth and that photography answer was 100% correct i dare you to tell me how thats wrong
I’m 100% NASA stuck they same clouds all over the fake earths . That’s what I am .
Austruth really then why don’t you go ahead and show us proof of this and not from some retarded flat earthh nonsense
show us proof on the original photos
Why don’t you show us proof those pictures are real? You globe earth guy and the other flat earth guy both have no points. The very truth is that both of you can not prove both sides. No one have been in free space to see period! If you can believe in those pictures when nasa said many times they are not real then you have to be an idiot as well. NASA has nothing far away from earth in free space to take a picture of earth.
Austruth Have you seen the originally released, official NASA photograph? Or just one that could have been photoshopped by someone else because they want some attention?
The sun going in the wrong direction, that you have seen for yourself, should be enough to convince you that the globe earth is correct and the flat earth is wrong. So why are you still holding on to this flat earth nonsense?
Show me the real one according to you guys . Don’t worry if you show me something I agree with I will tell you unlike you guys that know everthing and cannot be told . I looked into refraction today and I believe it could only make a slight difference in my view . Chicago from 60 miles should never be seen at all on a curved earth but the sun movement makes me think curved . So show me your real photos please . I’m expecting there the one I’ve been looking at already .
Austruth I don’t wanna read everything from the start, so did you “explain” how the sun is supposed to stay up in the sky, and how does it moves ? Is there some sort of a crane hanging it ?
And if the sun is moving in the sky of a flat earth, and is supposed to be some kind of a spot (which is absolutely dumb, if you Watch a spot from a long distance, you still see the light), why does it fall to the horizon ? It should only “fly away”…
rhooManu Austruth ego keeps it up and makes it move
and its an optical illusion (i dont believe the flat earth farce but thats flat earth thinking for ya)
well some say its suspended in the ether .. ether was dispoven a long time ago and was never able to be defined in the 1st place
some believe its projected on the dome
theres alot of whacko rationalization involved in believing the earth is flat
Austruth refraction? or superior mirages?
you believe? or you know/
rule of thumb in all distance to horizon calculations is to add a 20% margin of error, wich at times can be greater
add that to the fact that you only see tall buildings, and it only was seen once, not every day… well you can figure it out
now you call us know it alls (even affter i admit how little i know) but there are some real smart people here
but flat earthers tell you to reject everything you learned in school saying all education was a lie
they make up facts and figures, claim the most basic truths like ravity and the moon are lies
would you really trust know nothings over know somethings?
Austruth Aus, when you say you “looked into refraction,” exactly what does that mean? How much difference COULD atmospheric refraction make, and why? What calculations did you perform, and using what assumptions?
Getting back to the “NASA photos” question – obviously, they’re ALL the Earth, and most of the explanations that have been given for the differences are, in my opinion, correct. The differences are accounted for by different cameras, lenses, and the original intent of the photograph (what data it was trying to capture). (And clearly, both camera and display/print technologies have changed very significantly over the 40+ year span covered by these photos. Dig through your old family photos – are the color qualities, etc., perfectly consistent throughout the years in those?)
One thing I do want to go into a bit more are the color differences. There are many ways to capture color in photographs and video, and as Soaringeagle noted there are questions of white balance, etc., all of which depend on adjustments in-camera and later. The problem with color is always that there really ISN’T any single “right” answer, since there is in fact no actual physical quality of “color” – color is a PERCEPTION, which means that much depends on the specific observer and the characteristics of the human visual system in general. We see color differently depending on the characteristics of the object being observed, the light source, AND our own particular sensitivities and adaptation. So any color photograph is always going to be just an approximation of what you would have seen, were you observing in place of the camera, and this is further complicated by the characteristics of the output device (e.g., are you looking at the image on a computer monitor, a TV screen, as a color print, etc.). You need to have a LOT of data describing both the original image capture device and the output (display) technology, plus any color adjustments which have been made in the interim, to have any hope of doing an “accurate” color rendering across a range of different photographs.
By the way, I don’t think the 1972 image, unless I’m very much mistaken, is a composite. This appears to be the famous “Blue Marble” photo, taken by the crew of Apollo 17 about 2 hours after they left Earth orbit and from a distance of about 45,000 kilometers. Some of the other images in this series ARE satellite composites, which obviously implies that color processing of the individual images would’ve had to have been performed in order to generate a consistent whole. The compositing process also very likely added some unavoidable geometric distortion.
This is, by the way, something I am professionally involved in; I’m a display/imaging engineer, and can claim at least some experience/expertise in color science and image processing.
Austruth Oh, and one more question raised on that “photo” image – why don’t we see any videos of the Earth spinning?
Think about it: the Earth “spins” at a rate (obviously) of once per day. Yes, at the equator you can, somewhat inaccurately, express this as “1,000 miles per hour,” but think about how slow it would look from an observer at the distances from which these photos were taken. For North America to move significantly from this perspective would require the better part of an hour. Planets simply DO NOT spin as rapidly as they’re shown to on TV shows like “Star Trek.”
And most of the sources of images such as these simply do not have the ability to capture motion video in the first place. What would be the point? We already KNOW the Earth spins, and how rapidly, from ground-based measurements. It’s simply not worth the effort or cost to take such videos. The Apollo flights carried on-board video cameras, sure – but do you expect one of the astronauts to take the time to point that camera out the window for an hour just to capture an extremely boring video? Especially when they could be getting MUCH higher-quality imagery from their still cameras?
And yet NASA released a spinning earth video years ago and the clouds didn’t move . Aust had the same cloud formation in the same areas every time it came around(24 hours) And I don’t know the earth spins . Ibe been told it does
That is facts that you can see the top to bottom and that should not happen from 60-70 miles but I think the earth is bigger than what they really think it is idk if it’s round or flat but till this day no one has seen the curve
Stop! Have you seen the original or just what you see on they web site? Facts is nasa already said the pictures are not real!
Austruth There’s no need to know everything, but simple basics of science, AND how to do a proper research on the web, looking at facts and explanations, not twisted theories on websites with illuminati logos.
rhooManu Austruth austruth is the only flat earther or well only 1 confused about the shape that dared to discuss it here with real smart people
you mention the earth anywhere else and flat earthers flood in and take over
they don’t dare debate smart people
i started http://www.flatearthdebunked.com
2 flat earthers joined only 1 ever said anything
but few days ago i posted this..horible sound i know
but absolutely proves 1 of thier claims false
and look at how many thumbs down it gets
you prove them wrong and they don’t like it at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4IRrX4fnlM
You really believe those are real pictures lol nasa has said plenty of times they are not real! A real picture would be them actually taking it in free space. I hope you know that nothing from earth has ever been in free space
Lol you believe those pictures of earth are real? Are you serious?
Austruth Because satellites are not that far from earth, taking a picture of it is not possible. It required assembling many, many pictures. The only “global” earth picture are taken from the moon, and you don’t believe in man on the moon either.
rhooManu Austruth mostly correct there are some farther off photos too even from near saturn
U0001f602U0001f602U0001f602 none and this is what people believe in lmao again I’m not a flat earth or globe earth but I am a nasa is bullshit guy!
Flat earthers say with trigonometry and the suns rays they can measure the sun on being 3000 miles away .
Austruth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
that is what they are refering to
common atmospheric phnemenon that causes the clouds to spread out the rays of light
does a rainbow prove god flooded the earth or that raindrops refract light
clouds are water vapor they refract light causing these rays
actually they dont use trigonometry because they would only measure the distance to the tops of the couds
they lie
Austruth Well, it’s very easy to say things like that – it’s another thing altogether to actually show them. If you have a pointer to any such calculations, I’d love to see them. At least as I learned trig, my calculations come up with a considerably greater distance.
By the way, the distance to the sun was first accurately determined by Christiaan Huygens, over 350 years ago – so it doesn’t require anything in the way of modern equipment to do this. In fact, the Greek philosopher Aristarchus, who is also generally considered to be the first to propose a Sun-centered solar system, did a calculation of the Sun’s distance, using the correct geometry but an insufficiently-accurate measurement of a critical angle, around 250 BC. He was off by a factor of about 20, but that still would’ve put the sun over 4 million miles from Earth. So the flat-Earth crowd is claiming a distance over a thousand times less than what was measured by one of the ancient Greeks over two millennia ago.
And I know nothing about stars only to say that it’s hard for me to believe that they are as far away as they say . We don’t even know the shape of our own planet . Recently Neil Degrass Tyson stated the earth is shaped like a pear . Really? NASA photos don’t show that . The Blue Marble is perfectly round is it not ?
Austruth Tyson’s comments refer to what we know of the Earth’s deviation from a perfect sphere; he doesn’t mean to say that it literally looks like a pear. The deviation from being “perfectly round” is only about 0.3%, far to small to be easily seen by eye.
Most of the deviation from being perfectly spherical comes from the fact that the Earth IS rotating, and so “bulges out” a bit around the equator; in other words, the radius as measured at the equator is slightly larger than it is measured from the center to either pole. And the radius does not vary smoothly from equator to poles – hence the description as being very slightly “pear shaped.” So no, it is not PERFECTLY round. But it’s darn close. The numbers are approximately:
Equatorial radius: 3963 miles
Polar radius:3950 miles
You can get all of the gory details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius
By the way, the largest deviation from “perfect roundness” that we can see in the solar system IS clearly visible; if you look at a picture of Jupiter, you’ll see that it is notably “bulging” around the equator. This is because Jupiter is mostly gas (it may not even have a solid surface as we think of such things), and is the fastest-rotating of all the planets (the Jovian “day” is just 10 of our hours long, but the planet is over 10 times the diameter of Earth). In Jupiter’s case the difference between the polar and equatorial radii is almost 3,000 miles, out of an average radius of about 44,000 miles.
As to the stars being “as far away as they say” – first, let’s note that whether or not something is true has nothing at all to do with how easy or hard it is for any of us to believe it. But then let me ask you…just why do you find these distances so hard to believe? Would a larger or smaller universe be any more or less believable? Why?
This is sometimes referred to in science or mathematics as the “magic of large numbers” (which goes equally well for small numbers, too). We’re just not used to dealing with anything far removed from our ordinary scale of existence. But that doesn’t make these things any less real. It is very easy these days to demonstrate that there really are such things as atoms and electrons and protons – but they exist on a scale so incredibly small that it is literally unimaginable. But does that mean that these things aren’t real?
Just let me know what out of this statement/calculation is wrong
Austruth In none of these photographs of Chicago from 60 miles away have I ever seen street level, I have only seen the tops of buildings. So maths aside, this would prove to me that the Earth is curved.
There is a much easier way to settle this:
As you are in Australia, one thing should tell you that the flat Earth model is very, very wrong. That is, which way the sun curves through the day, as it goes overhead.
On the FE model, it doesn’t matter what season it is, or whether you are in the Northern or Southern hemisphere. The sun on a FE model always tracks in the same way, clockwise.
However, this is not the case in the Southern hemisphere. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
http://www.sydneyobservatory.com.au/2014/the-daily-motion-of-the-sun-throughout-the-year-as-seen-from-the-southern-hemisphere/
This can only be explained if the Earth is a globe.
First time you have shown me something and I see it with my own eyes and said “that’s not right ” . Amazing,,,I said that to my wife on Saturday . I said why is that sun curving away to my left when it should be moving clockwise and away to my right . I was thing maybe because I am north of the Tropic of Capricorn . So well done I agree with that one . On the Chicago skyline . Someone posted a video and showed the whole city top to bottom from 60 miles . I’ll have to find it for you
Austruth nah it only shows the buildings and like i said it only happened once when there was a particularly strong temerature inversion
why do you think it made the news why was it so well documented ..not because it can be seen evry day so its prfectly normal, only becaue it was such an abnormal occurance
go there today and see if you cant see it yourself
you cant
https://youtu.be/p8eIuT-nSAs
Austruth exactly
As i said its a superiour miragge..it happened 1 time and 1 time only it cannot be seen ev ery day it is not proof of a flat earth it is proof of deliberate deception fraud and manipulation
stop falling for their lies
stop watchu]ing thier vids
you need deprogramming you are becoming indoctrinated into a cult
Austruth Like I said. You can’t see street level in that video. You can only see the tall buildings. You can’t see the buildings in the suburbs either side of Chicago, or the land mass the buildings are on.
Austruth Well, first, even if this analysis were correct, it would not prove that the Earth is flat – it would only (seemingly) “prove” that the curvature was less than what had been assumed.
But this calculation, as has been noted time and time again, completely ignores the possibility that the atmosphere could refract light and result in the image of Chicago being seen from farther away than would be expected – the “superior image” phenomenon, which has been mentioned before (and you’ve been provided with numerous references to descriptions of how this works).
If the visibility of Chicago from 60 miles away were actually due to the curvature of the Earth being less than assumed, then it would be visible ALWAYS. But that’s not the case. Situations such as shown in this photograph are relatively rare, as has been noted by many people who actually live in the area and have seen both conditions (included, I will add again, myself).
If you want to propose a given theory, then that theory has to account for ALL the evidence, not just those few situations which are cherry-picked to support that theory.
Austruth its not the formula thats wrong but the fact that they used a day when a superior mirage was pressent ..remember we alreAdy talked about temperature inversions and superior mirages? this happened once! one time were you able to see chicago that far..not every day, not even most days…once
again its manipulation and fraud
Austruth
i thought you were willing to start thinking critically but your still gobbling up their manipulations and lies
as long as you keep gobbling up the crap they say, your wasting our time cause we cannot help you
you are becoming immune to factsonly lies will satisfy you
soaringeagle, I agree Austruth is starting to sound less open minded and more like a fully fooled FE’er.
slymonster soaringeagle Austruth its true i told him the other day that there was hope for him but he had to listen to reasonable people who were trying to help him..very patiently and had to stop all investigation into the flat crap
you cant escape a cult when your still in the cult reading thier brainwashing bullshit
you have to cut all ties sever all communication and deprogram yourself
he is listening to us prove them wrong but then going right back to them to get his head all fucked up again
this is off topic but i help alot of abuse victims
the 1st and worse was a woman, 38 whos dad beat the word no out of her vocabulary
consequentially shed do any sick thing any guy told her to do
1 guy ..over the internet wouldnt even alow her to know his name or see his face but made her promice to kill herself if he told her to, to abandon her kids, meet him in the woods let him and 20 of his buddiies rape her chop her up and kill her
she could not say no
i worked with her for 8 months 18 hour days
we made great progress wich he wiped out in 15 minutes of punishments
why is thi relevant/
as long as he is willingly exposing himself to fraud, deception and manipyulastion he will never escape the cult, never think clearly, never accept truth facts and common sense
he is addicted to the abuse ..or in this case the lies and confusion
I’m starting to think your a paid troll . If someone told me the earth was flat 6 months ago I would have said good luck with that and never given it another thought . But you…just go on and on and on. make that last post your last on here and prove me wrong hey?
Austruth you just proved my point
6 months ago you were able to think straight
now you can’t
you need to stop exposing yourself willingly to brainwashing bullshit
Austruth the stars are that far away
tye distance diference from north t south and east to west is off by a whopping 24 miles
yes it is not perfectly round
nothing in nature is round
but in a nasa photo
tbat would be 1 millionth of a milimeter diference from nrth to south and eas to west
do you really expect to see that in a picture
yes technically its not exactly round
but it is pretty damn close
To be realistic it is no proof of the earth being round and no proof of it being flat. No one has ever shown a real picture of the earth being round or flat so all the science guessing game and silly light year numbers does not prove nothing. And in free space it is no such thing as light years, to be frank once you are in free space you can not see any stars at all. If you believe that man went to the moon then you will believe anything nasa or science told since a child but if you have a open mind then you will question a lot of things. Like me I can’t prove anything but I find it odd if I could dig a hole on the globe earth from Alaska threw earth I would just fall out the bottom of Antarctica up rite. Or when I reach the center so call gravity will flip me upside down and I will dig up and come up out of Antarctica. Gravity the word and theory was based for a globe earth but truth is Newton him self don’t know what gravity is and how it works. Many people in the pass the flat earth was first then switch to round earth but both are theory’s because it is no visual proof masa has used the same picture since 1975 and CGI in later years. I’m not with the flat earth or round earth I only been told since the day I was born the earth is round. The moon is round the sun is round so I would think earth is round but most animals walk on four but we walk on two. So idk
Austruth They say that the sun is 32 miles wide and that can be seen at sunset, which would be approximately 6000 miles away, same with the moon. Yet we cannot see whole mountain ranges from just 100’s of miles away? There is something wrong with their model. Their explanation of perspective is way off the mark.
Sorry disagree with that . I’m a truck driver and there is a town I go to that is 60 miles away . I can see the whole hill in front of this town from that far away . I’ve never thought about that until the last 3 months as I just excepted what they said . Now I see these things and know the measurements I question what I have been taught .
Austruth And you have looked a gradient maps to see how high both you and the hill is?
Austruth hills are hills hills are not flat
think abot that
they rise up
Austruth your thinking about it nbut not thinking about it clearly
instead your thinking about it through the confusion taught to you by morons that don’t believe in satelites yoju can see with your own eyes, that think the moons a hologram, and every rocket shot into space actualy just crashes into the ocean
you have to stop watching the conspiracy vids these people are tinfoil hatters they believe everything is out to get them…paraniod
everything is a lie now they have infected you and now a hill is no longer a hil,l but a lie, a deception
that hill you saw every day suddenly is a trick ..an evil plot
do you see whbat they have done to the way you think?
i travel almost as much as a trucker
in the mountains you can be on a loooong gradual slope down looking at a lloooong gradual slope up the grades not so steep you even notice your not driving level, but the diference in altitudes from point a..swbhere you are to point b the lowestt pooint aned point c the farthesest you can see can be 4000 feet down 5000 feet up
if thats a very low grade that lets you see a very long way
I don’t drive in or around mountains . I drive on a flat plain which has a hill here or a hill there . The highest mountain I have In my town is about 600 meters high and stands by itself . The hill I’m talking about would stand no more than 600 ft yet I can see all of it from 40-50 miles away . So don’t give me jibber about refraction or any of that crap . I can see the whole shape of this hill and it stays the same shape till I am right next to it
Austruth flat planes
ok lets look at this there are 2 places on earth that have hundreds of square miles that are completely flat
kansas is flat border to border
the]is is a flat area of land unafected by the curve because its a flat area of land
the curve is a cyrve of the entire globe
only the oceans are truly representative of the curve as they are fluid and cannot be anything but a curve they cannot be mountains valleys or planes
if you took the water away from the planet, its an ugly lumpy shape indeed
the water smoothes it out
the depths of the oceans is greater then the beights of the mountains
but the arth has hills mountains flatlands they all average out to a ball
but as i said only liquid 100% con=forms to the shape of the curve
you cant jusdge a curve of the earth by anything on land
Austruth as i said if you remove the water
this is the earths truest shape..the rocky part
also mapping out micro diferences in gravity due to localized mass and density
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/most-accurate-shape-of-the-earth/
You live in a place where the elevation doesn’t change AT ALL over a distance of 50 miles? Care to put a wager on that? Have you ever looked at a topographic map of the area?
bobm73 could be kansas
i remember driving through kansas we saw some trees..the only trees we had seen in the whole state we asked a local about them, he said it would take at least 3 days to walk to those trees
there are 2 places on earth kansas and i forget the other that is literally completely flat for hundreds of miles…boring as hell too nearly impossible to stay awake driving through kansas and i typically stay awake coast to coast
Kansas certainly seems flat, but by the criteria we should be applying here it really isn’t. Remember, “flat” here really means that the elevation (height of the surface above mean sea level) is constant, such that we could use calculations which assume that the radius of the Earth is unchanging, to much better than about 8 inches per mile. How many places can you think of where the ground really doesn’t gain or lose a foot over a mile?
In the case of Kansas, let’s note that the average elevation of Kansas City (on the eastern edge of the state) is 1004 feet, while the highest point in the state (“Mt. Sunflower,” near the western side where Kansas borders Colorado) is 4,039 feet – over 3,000 feet higher! Kansas is about 400 miles wide, making for an average gain in elevation of a bit over 7 feet per mile. Not surprisingly, the “8 inches per mile squared” would lead to some spectacularly wrong conclusions here.
bobm73 see what i get for believing anything flat earther says
even that dude i think vance or whatever claimed that they measuesd kansas and it was completely flat
hes suposedly a science dude
sorta
but i just checked kansas isnt even in th top 10 flattest places on earth
http://www.redbull.com/us/en/adventure/stories/1331712375916/mysterious-places-part-5
Well, there were some calculations published recently which showed that, in fact, Kansas is actually flatter than a pancake! (But you have to realize that first, we’re talking about a very different meaning of “flatness,” and second, that your average pancake isn’t really all that flat in the first place.)
But speaking as someone who lived in Colorado for a long time, and regularly drove across both Kansas and Nebraska, I agree that either is just about the most godawful boring drive that one can make.
bobm73 short list of the places i want to love most in order
colorodo
oregon
new mexico (taos area)
ashville nc
if i just wouldnt always get stuck here in the phily area
soaringeagle bobm73 I lived about 30 years in Colorado; it IS very nice. And I’ve spent a good deal of time in Oregon and New Mexico. I like Oregon better than NM, but they’re both nice as well. Haven’t been in North Carolina much, but it always seemed too humid for my tastes.
bobm73 soaringeagle oregon is pure awesomeness
taos had 2 things going for it
1 the sunsets
2 1 personn offered me 10 acres of land then every other person i ran into offered to build me a hiouse
we stopped for gas the guy pumping gas across from us..offered to build me a house..
thats kinda nice
missoiri is kinda…ehhh but i will saw 1 thing for it
we broke down 30 times crossing missouri
you pop the hood and in seconds cars..more then 1 stop to help
the last time the guy worked on it 18 hours, took a starter and fuel pump off his own truck and would only accept 1 single beer in payment
Austruth you should also look at this
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/where-todays-belief-in-a-flat-earth-may-have-come-from/
the flat earth crap most likely started from this eric dubay uses it as proof of a flat earth, but it was a lesson for kids in critical thinking, in not accepting everything you see at face value but instead thinking critacally about if it makes sense
its also about how media can be used to manipulate you
now heres something you dont know about the head of the flat earth society
he uses several names, one is his “yogi or guru name’ he wants to be a cult ldeader just talking to him you know there is no real spirituality in him he is a vile human being
one, well is his masonic name, as much as he screams about the masons being behind the deception, he is high up in the masonic order himself
his 200 proofs video, uses 200 lies
every distance he mentions is off by at least 50% towns he say are 70 miles apart are only 13 miles apart
photos he says are taken from a forrest t are taken from 200 feet up a fire tower
other photos he claim are taken from a harbor clearly show huge cranes hundreds of feet tall ..way down below the photo taken from the highest building in town
every 1 of his proofs are complete fabrications, lies, and…fraud
just manipulations nothing more
all his maths nonsense
oh and the person he quotes most often
a convicted sex offender that had 14 children with his own 16 year old dauhghter and only 4 survived
so yea thats his most credible source
my prescription do not watch 1 single flat earth vid ever again
stick around here these guys are awesome and patiently trying to teach ..and sorry for this term but its appropriate.. deprogram you (flat earth really is a mind control cult)
and keep tabs on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com too its only 2 weeks old but we ae debunking this bunk more and more daily
but you have to avoid all contact with the flat earth crowd, its like an abusive relationship (if you were a woman not a trucker lol) if you go back they got you under their control again the only escape is a zero contact policy then and only then can you think clearly again
slymonster Austruth they don’t have a model, they have an idea, that to be less insignificant we have to be the center of everything, then they distort all of reality to fit that idea, with outright fraudulent data, confusing arguments that are convuluted enough to just make the gullible ask…what if.. and over all a parania about everything everyyone ever learned was a lie
i swear if you told them that someone once taught them how to tie their shoes they would say thats just brainwashing to force you to make two loops and make you believe in the concept of infinity when really everything is so finite its self contained in a dome
yep..even tying yoir shoes and brushing your teeth can be tied into the paranoid delusion once your in deep enough
Austruth So as I requested – tell me where you are and which islands you’re talking about, and we can work out the specifics of that situation. As for Cuba – so you are saying that you can see clearly out to 30 miles and more, but somehow couldn’t see ANYTHING at 90 miles? Why not?
As for Chicago, I have to assume you’re talking about Lake Michigan, and whether or not one could see the buildings of downtown Chicago from the opposite shore. And the answer is that yes, sometimes you can. Please see the following.
http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline
But I grew up in that area, and I can tell with a VERY high confidence that you cannot always see Chicago from any part of Michigan; in fact, the above situation is actually quite unusual. You may recall that in a previous post here, I mentioned the fact that the calculations we were discussing were ignoring possible refraction effects within the atmosphere. This is exactly what I was talking about.
If Lake Michigan, or any other large body of water, were perfectly flat, you could see across it ALL THE TIME. But that’s not what happens.
By the way, please note that in bringing up this case, you’ve extended the range across which YOU claim we should be able to see things to 60 miles, while at the same time claiming that we can’t see Cuba (at 90 miles) AT ALL because it’s “too far away.” Do you believe something magical happens between 60 and 90 miles?
Exactly it’s many examples of seeing a sky line from 60-70 miles away and you can see a full view from top to bottom and if the earth is curve we should see a drop off of the sky line
TyroneGale actually these are rare, not daily occurances cayused by temoperature inversions refracting lite why dont you see thst every day? and no you onl;y see the tall buildings not street level
if the earth was flat
and your 32 mile wide sun can be seen at 3000 miles up and 6000 miles horizontwlly
then why cant new york city be seen from france let alone all of the 4000 mile coastline thats less then 3000 miles away
you look at a event that happened once (thats why it was big news typical inversions only alow you to see maybe 30 miles that was a very strong temperature gradient that caused that)
temperature inversions cause a lifet in the skyline by refracting light
light slows through diferent temperature air at diferent rates distance to horizon calculations have a 20% margin of error diue to temprrature gradients refracting light diferently..20% normally sometimes in rare cases can be alot more
you use a 1 time phenomenon as proof
if you threw a paper airplane into a tornado and it was found 300 miles away does that prove all paper airplanes can fly 300 miles?
abnormal conditions are not proof of anything except gullibility
I guess you be one of the people that thinks the sun actually rise and fall lol
TyroneGale no the earth spins and orbits the moon orbits us
i guess you be 1 of the ones that magicly believes it just hangs above us even thpugh ypu see it go over the horizon
you know the sites called smsrterthenthat who let the people in who can’t understand simple concepts
Austruth let me end your confusion right here
flat earth theory says in order for the flat earth calculations to be true (take that old stick and hadow measurement that determined the circumference of the earth pretty sccurately) and move the sun to 3000 miles away and 32 miles across then the curve is flat, as long as nnobody ever tries the experiment again with the sticks in a new location then the sun has to move again
but ok lets look at a 32 mile wide sun at 3000 miles away when straight up
and it moves 6000 miles before ‘moving out of visual range” (1st off if that were true it wouldnt dip below the orizon it would never go beloew 26 degrees get smaller and smaller then disapear
but the distance between north america and europe… at the center of america not the shore is under 5000 miles
the sun the size of new york city
so from the shore of uk you should see nyc about the size of the sun and all of north and south america ..again im not a math guy bob can calculate it for you but a rough estimate would be it would fill a 30 degree arc of your vision
if you can see a 32 mile across ball at 3000+6000 miles why cant you see a 3000+ mile coastline at under 3000 miles
can you now see how reduiculous this flat earth nonsense is?
Agree…that’s why I stick to things I can see and can understand eg. I know people who have flown from Australia to Sth America non stop 12-13 hours so I know that the flat earth map isn’t right . I am not one to believe everything I hear and if I can I’ll go out and work it out myself
Austruth good your not lost yet then stop watching flat earth bgrainwashing read up on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com (its a new site so still growing daily)
now every flat earther can go to anartica..they claim you will be shot if you do..lies
there is nobody there to shoot you
there are a dozen travel agencies that do nothing but polar tours
you can go right to the south pole itself
every flat earther has the ability to prove if there is a wall dome or just a south pole but not 1 of them will ever even try to go
Austruth Exactly. In fact, Qantas is one of the few airlines flying a Great Circle route which crosses over any part of Antarctica. And yet at the same time there are quite a few flying similar routes over the Arctic region. The only way that both could be in use at the same time is if the Earth is, in fact, approximately spherical.
As to soaring’s case of seeing, say, the shores of the United States from the UK, one might make the argument that 3000 miles is simply too far to see through the air. But if we had a bright enough light source, you’d think that would not be a problem – especially if most of the distance in question was NOT through the air. So – if the Earth were flat, surely we should expect that people in Europe – or even the northeast U.S., such as in New England, where I am – could see launches from the U.S. launch complex in Florida. A shuttle launch, for instance, rose above most of the atmosphere with the main engines and solid boosters still burning; why couldn’t that be seen from Boston?
Does it strike you as at all odd that ALL of the “curvature” examples claimed by Flat Earth proponents are over relatively short distances, while we have more than enough examples which counter these but are over somewhat longer distances (and so would be less prone to error, variations in surface elevation, etc.)?
The atmosphere is denser at sea level. Also the sun is illuminated. So much misinformation on both sides of this debate.
Duder0088 and that proves what?
nothing the atmosphere is clear unless thderes rain snow or smoke
atmosphere doesnt limit visibility
but your right the sun is illuminated so why is it that it suddenly cant be seen no more?
it doesnt stay 26 degrees above the horizon and get smaller and smaller it dips below the horizon .. over the curve
in fact, the denser atmospgere makes it look bigger as it gets nearer the horizon
hmm hows it suddenly drop below the horizon when it should never touch the horizon just move out of sight
yes the disinformation is entirely in the flat earth farce
its deliberate deception
Austruth bobs smarter then me but i have 1 thing and 1 thing only i know more about then he might
you see, i am a glider pilot
why is that important? 1 reason.
no weather reports, not even (most) weather reports for airmen report when theres a temperature inversion, however a temperature inversion directly affects the stability of air below the inversion layer and the formation of thermals
so
only a weather report for airmen specifically a soaring weather report will tell you when a temperature inversion is in effect, to what altitude and the gradient (typicaly temperatures at a few altitudes you then have to plot)
temperature inversions where i fly are typical once or twice a week, and on occasion can last a couple days
so whats this matter?
when a temperature inversion is in effect you get whats called a superiour mirage
far off distant things appear to be lifted higher then they are
in essence you are seeing beyond the curve because objects over the curve are lifted into view..not physically ofcourse but the light reflected from them is bent by the temperature inversion
im not a scientist bob can explain this part better then me
im just saying how its caused and how common it is
but temperature usualy gets colder with altitude
temperature inversions get warmer as you go up till you hit the inversion layer
where i fly its usualy around 1500 feet but varies
its typically very clear below with very smooth air and rising temps very ..well not very but hazy above and turbulant
the temperature inversion refracts the light upwards
distance to horizon calculations generaly say they can be off by a factor of 20%
cause they are based on a standard day but you can expect a 20% margin of error since without a soaring weather report theres no way other then taking temp readings yourself to know when to expect a diference, in truth that 20% is an average degree of error and some very strong gradient inversions can cause the margin of error ..or the view range to be off by more then 20%
Austruth I wish people would think about things better. The 8 inches squared thing is only a useful approximation over very short distances. Plot it on a piece of graph paper. It doesn’t give a circular curve at all, it is parabolic in nature. It is useful for maybe 3 – 5 miles and as stated by Bob M, it does not take into consideration the height of the observer or what is being observed, or refraction, which is generally plugged in to formulas as being + 20% of the heights of both observer and object.
I would suggest that when you next look at these islands, do so on a cold day (as cold air holds less moisture and therefore cuts down on refraction) and lie down on the beach. See how much of the island you can see. Then stand up, walk up the beach, stand on something high and see how much you can see.
The 8 inches squared is the best tool we can use as people that will never go to an altitude to see the curve for ourselves . When you are 50 miles away the curve is 1666 ft . There is no escaping that fact . If I’m standing on a beach the 6 ft tall I am will have little effect on the numbers let alone being able to see the bottom of what you are not supposed to see . Shorter distances for me are harder as you have the height of the waves interfering
Austruth You are wrong. That approximation is only useful over very, very short distances. And makes no exceptions for height. If you want to use math to disprove a globe earth then you have to use the correct math. Not very flawed math. Sailors don’t use that math, civil engineers don’t use that math, only flat earthers use that math.
It is intrinsically flawed. It will get you nowhere.
Well you tell me what the figures are and how you got them for 50 miles
Austruth
This is possibly the most useful description, Method 2, which you can also compensate for refraction:
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Distance-to-the-Horizon
Ok . I’m in a truck 7 ft off the ground and I can see the whole hill from 50 miles . Give me you figures on what I should see
Austruth Take a look at the link. Without knowing the height above sea level of you and the hills, I cannot do the math.
lets just say I am at the same sea level . give me the figures for the same height .
Austruth If you are around 6 feet tall, you can see someones head from approx 6 miles away, given a perfect sphere and ignoring refraction. If you include refraction, then you are talking maybe 9 miles away.
So now we will use refraction to explain thing I can see in plain sight . Ok you win the scientist win again with big words . Anyway good to have a discussion with you guys . I now know why it is easy to fool people then tell them they have been fooled . Mark Twain
What is the elevation of the point the truck is on when you’re 50 miles from the hill? What is the elevation of the peak of the hill itself? (Not the height of the hill above its surroundings – we need the elevation above mean sea level of both points.) You cannot simply assume that the area in question is a section of a perfect sphere of fixed radius, not if you’re talking about any example on land. (Even at sea there are some deviations, but at least it’s much closer.)
slymonster Austruth i keep recomending they go to a huge lake, where you can’t see the other side, like lake superior
since the shoreline wraps around the lake pick something distinctive like a tree or rock at the farthest point you can see
take 2 photos on a tripod 1 using a 50 mm lens.. pretty close to what your eye sees and 1 with a 1000 mm lens thats a 42x zoom (nikon coolpix p510 superzoom hybrids a great cheap camera for the job) this way you see that etye and telescope see the edge of the horizon at the exact same distance only closer and magnified
now climb 2 stories in a lakeside building..repeat
notice also where the original tree or rock is now a good ays from the horizon
repeat every 2 stories till you reach the roof
flat earthers claim if u use a telescope you can see objects that went over the horizon…this is a lie
this will prove it
I don’t have a huge lake to go to. Best I could do would be a mile at best . What I have done is get 2 ft of the water and seen the bottom of a ferry from 6 mile . It was probably 7 but I’ll round down .
Austruth I’m a scuba diver. I can quite categorically say that when my eyes are just above water level, with a very slight sea state, I can see a very short distance. Moments later, when stood on a boat, maybe with my eyes 8 feet above sea level, I can see for miles.
I understand that and that is why the further you are away from what you want to measure is better
Austruth Okay, I don’t really understand what you are trying to say there. You don’t have to look at things far away to prove there is a curvature. the flat earthers use distance to confuse people because the maths they use (the 8 inch squared) get more and more inaccurate the further away you are. As for them claiming that this formula comes from NASA, I have never seen any reference to that formula on any NASA documentation.
I used Pythagoras as my math reference to work it out . Blood hard way to do it then someone got me on to the – if it 6 miles then it 6×6 x8 inches . Which works out 24 ft . The same both ways
Austruth If you know pythagoras then you know you need to calculate the distance from the centre of the Earth and you should also realise that a simple squared equation gives a parabolic shape, not a circular one. So you should know that the 8 inch squared rule is very inaccurate.
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html This is how I was told .
Austruth Like I said, and as stated on that page, 8 inches per mile is an approximation. As with any approximation, the greater the number the less accurate it becomes. It doesn’t even state on that page the 8 inches squared nonsense.
Austruth how are you guesstimating this distance .. can you easily tell the diference from 3 miles and 5? i have never met anyone that could just look at an object and say thats 5 miles away
how talls the ferry, how long
how tall are you
now you said ‘i have a hard time believing the stars are that far away’ many of those stars are so big 10000 of our suns can fi]t inside them, many of those stars arent stars but entire galaxies bigger then our own
so how can you trust your ability to judge distances when you cant acceot stars being far away
that ferry could have been 1 or 2 miles for all you can tell by just guessing
Because I drive the distance and I get on google earth to get some for myself too. I round down distances so there can be no argument in my own head
bobm73 soaringeagle terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado
thinking deeply? or at all?
they have claimed in this hilarious video http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/stefan-molyneux-takes-a-flat-earther-call/
the dome is clear
but meteors are peices of the dome
ofcourse all black meteors are fake even if you dug it out of the roof of your car after 1 hit it
others claim that the dome moves to simulate the spinning of the earth
from a psychological standpoint this is fascinating
you could make a youtube video claiming that nasa is actually owned by dominoes pizza
the earliest missions to the moon discovered it really is made of cheese
and every rocket sent off now secretly goes to the moon to mine the cheese for pizzas
and the flat earth is just being slowly re-intruduced into our thinking in preperation for the creation of the worlds largest pizza…. transporting the entire moon to cover the earth and move the sun to 3000 miles away to bake it…
and us? we are just pizza toppings for an alien race that are on their way to pick up the biggest pizza in the universe
you make a youtube video that ridiculous and hundreds if not thousands will swear it makes perfect sense..and insist nothing but that makes sense
soaringeagle Do they actually “know” (haha) where the border of the earth is ? I’d love to go and touch this shiny glass dome ! I’ll probably write my name on it and Instagram my face behind. 😀 bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado
rhooManu soaringeagle bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado they don’t ‘know” anything and they are proud of that but they claim the ice wall or dome is at 60 degrees south lattitude and theres an army of every country on earth (even bitter enemies even costa rica that disbanded theirr entire military to use the money to prtect the environment) and even though you canj go straight to the south pole they sayy ‘how do we know they are taki g us to the south pole and not just another island” ummm.. the ice? the fact that you can lie on the ive look straight up and watch the earth spin arround the southern cross? the months of darkness? the fact your gps tellss you where you are?
they just don’t think
you can take them to the moon and they will swear they are on a sound stage or in a holodeck
they are probabbly dumb enough to remove their helmets to prove they arent in space
soaringeagle rhooManu bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado And after that, they would say the guy is dead because of a killing gaz.
bobm73
How dare you say that Star Trek is JUST a TV programme!
I also disagree with ‘them’ not thinking very deeply. IMO they are so far up their own ass that…. you can fill in the rest yourself.
soaringeagle bobm73 terrorabsolute Stop0000 JeffDelagado
Well, the nice thing about travelling near the speed of light is that, per the Gospel According to St. Albert, it wouldn’t seem NEARLY that long to those people doing the travelling. For more info (and a really good story besides!) read Poul Anderson’s classic “Tau Zero.”
JeffDelagado the earth is turning not spinning
brandonmdog JeffDelagado I thought ‘The Earth is burning’?
this, right here is by far the best thing i have ever seen on the flat earth topic!
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/stefan-molyneux-takes-a-flat-earther-call/
1st flat earth video i ever watched end to end without losing iq points
I have a question to ask the flat-Earth proponents here – and this may seem irrelevant, but please humor me. In addition to your belief in a flat Earth, are you also a Bible literalist/fundamentalist and/or a young-Earth creationist?
bobm73 Dear bobm73, I am not only a Bible believer and a creationist, I believe that the earth is spherical. When the God of Israel stated that he sits on the circumference of the earth, I believe that he intended that to mean that the earth is spherical. If you carefully check history, you will be hard-pressed to find any Jews like myself who believe that our God created a flat earth, choosing to leave the rest of the universe populated by spherical planets and stars. Contrary to popular belief, neither the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings or the B’rit Hadashah (New Testament) support a flat earth concept.
Taking the Bible literally is not the problem. Interpreting the Bible through a pagan Greco-Roman lense is the problem. Remember, it was the Greeks who believed that the planet was supported on the shoulders of the Titan Atlas, not the Jews. It was the Greeks who believed that the sun-god Apollo transported the sun across the sky being pulled by his chariot, chariot, not the Jews.
I’m fairly certain that my ancestors Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Apostles Peter, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, knew that the earth is spherical and not flat.
Shalom.
talmid2013 bobm73 if you talked to many of the flattards on youtube i have talked to they are very antisemetic anti jew anti zionist nazi scumbag peicses of shit
they claim nasa is run by nazis in 1 sentence then the next zionist jews
ive had christians threaten to kill me for saying i knew pagans and wiccans who were good moral people
i had 1 little troll constantly saying crap about the only reason i believe nasa is cause i wass raped by a jew
now im a spiritual person, not religios no offence but from what i have seen in the bible i cant understand how anyone believes any of it..but having said that the jewish interpretatins are far less sinister then thbat of these flattards
i mean absolutely no disrespect to you personally
soaringeagle talmid2013 bobm73 i am a Christian and i believe in the bible
soaringeagle Nazi Nasa was formed by ex Nazi specialists, who were in fact brought over by Zionist Jews after the war. The same families that funded both sides of the war and were promised Jerusalem(A home for all Jews) for bringing American troops to assist Britain when Nazi Germany had Britain by the balls. This is provable history. The earth being flat? Maybe not flat, definitely not “pear shaped” “spherical obloid” or perfectly round as they show in pictures. It does not mathematically work.
shannonleeshort soaringeagle ofcpurse it mathematically works
oh yes i heard that jews and nazis lkve eachother..are you insane?
nazis used scientists,./forced scientists to work for them many of wich escaped and went to work for other countries and went on to make very important discoveries
they were not part of the nazi party or ideology
case in point, didnt we recently, or now have a pope who was a nazi?
one of the guys i fly gliders with was a luftwafa glider pilot , but was not a nazi, did not agree with the war or what they were doing
think about how many people were drafted into nam but disagreed with the war
are you going to say all nam vets are evil cause they were in a war we should never have been in?
you dont make sense
nazis and jews in it together?
yea you been listening to these jutjobs way too long
Really . Now you fly with a guy who was around in WWII . Ypu are officially the greatest know it all in history
Austruth it was about 25 years ago he also taught the entire air force of some african country to fly jets
im not sure if hes still with us or not he was probably in his 60s then
but 1 thing you should know about me, no 2 1 i never lie i an extremely honest
and 2 i have had life experiences that are extreme,ly unique and veery few can say they have experienced many of the things i experienced
shannonleeshort soaringeagle But what does Nazi’s or Nasa have to do with a flat Earth?? Yes I will conceed that YOU ARE Correct about operation paper clip and the programs that were created with those scientists after the war, like nasa and MK ultra.However, being right about that does not by default associate the other conclusion of the earth being flat.
talmid2013 bobm73 The Greeks believed that Atlas supported the heavens on his shoulders, not the earth. But they also included many people who were capable of distinguishing myth from reality.
talmid2013 bobm73 Thanks, Talmid. I didn’t ask that question to imply that I thought you had to be a flat-Earther to be a creationist. The reason I asked was a comment made by someone elsewhere, to the effect that he had never encountered a flat-Earth believer who was not also a Biblical literalist and creationist. I was curious to see if that was actually true.
bobm73 talmid2013 its not though most are, some arent
all are gullible easily mislead paranoid and delusional. but not all are creationalists or christions
Here’s a photograph that I downloaded online searching for Photographs from the Concorde. I did not crop the left side of the photograph. No “curvature” is evident. Realize that different types of lenses can make flat surfaces seem curved. Also, take a look at photos using Go Pro wide angle settings, everything looks curved.
And your point is – what, exactly? How much visible curvature would you expect to see from that altitude? Why do you see a relatively close horizon in this picture, if the Earth were really a flat disk thousands of miles across?
bobm73 I think his point is that he has no concept of how big the Earth is.
bobm73 his point is he doesnt know what he is talking about it is a narrow obstructed view
the exact same lens out the front cockpit window would show a pronounced curve
soaringeagle bobm73 Actually, I doubt that you would see a “pronounced curve” from the typical flight altitude of the Concorde (or any other airliner) even from the cockpit, unless we’re talking about the fact that the viewer at any such altitude seems to be at the center of a rather large circle. But my point was that the circle isn’t nearly big enough, if the Earth were indeed a flat disk. Per any “flat Earth” model I’ve seen, flights in the Northern Hemisphere should always be thousands of miles from the supposed “edge of the Earth” – so why would you ever see a nearby horizon at all? You SHOULD – especially when flying as such an altitude as to be above the clouds – seem to be flying about an enormous plain, with no visible horizon in sight.
This is, of course, just one of the MANY problems with any of the flat Earth models that have been proposed. Reality is exactly the opposite of what has been claimed – the spherical, rotating Earth is actually the simplest model, by far, which satisfactorily explains everything we see and experience.
I suspect that within the next century, we will see the number of people who have been to low Earth orbit increase dramatically, and most of those will be private citizens. But I also suspect that there will still be a core of “true believers” in this nonsensical flat-Earth model who will, even then, deny even the reports of hundreds of eyewitnesses.
bobm73 soaringeagle pronounced might be the wrong word perceivable is more accurate
at 50,000 you can see a slight curve with a 60 degree view angle at higher altitudeslike the space jump to need at least a 40-40 gegree view angle’
and as i demonstrated in that video when you narrow the angle, by obstructing the views nthe exacgt same image they claim is a fisheye lens looks perfectly flat when viewed through a small window
PalmerReising that is a 5 degree you need 45 degrees to see a curve
the curves there but you eed a wide angle to see it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4IRrX4fnlM
see
PalmerReising And at what altitude is the photograph taken at? Really all this shows is some ‘level’ cloud tops in the distance. And it shows those through a window that Flat Earth proponents would describe as being curved if you could see any curvature.
The only thing this photograph proves is a lack of thinking things through.
PalmerReising I agree. It’s not the only thing we’ve been lied to :
rhooManu PalmerReising they also say sex is what causes babies, but i have an aunt they swore till the day she died that she got pregnant by being bitten by a snke
i guess they lied about that too and she was the only 1 on earth that knew the truth
so if you think your a dad..you arent
this is further proof that reptilians rule the world ( for a clasic conspiracy insanity read http://www.truthism.com look at all the proof they got haha)
every 1 of us was fathered by a snake and thats the biggest secret they have lied about throughout history
my crazy old aunt is the only 1 to ever tell the truth
soaringeagle rhooManu PalmerReising They didn’t call her Eve, or Mary did they?
slymonster soaringeagle rhooManu PalmerReising
no but that brings up an interestiing story
flat earthers are delusional, proof. facts, evidence will never dispell as delusion
case in point yearfs ago when myspace wasnt a wasteland i met a absolutely gorguse wooman on there who believed she was eve (but the eve from the Eritrean papers or whatever that was)
she believed she remembered all of history and giving birth to the entire human race
but she had a mother (hmm the 1st being had a mother? hows that work) her mother was the serpant the evil one
god, well god was a native american biker who sold meth, collected assault rifles, believed he was a lychanthrope and called himself evil god
everyone she knew was a saint, or a demon, and ften changed roles whether they would listen to her insanity or reject it (she sent me literaly 100 exteemely long ranting letters a day from the day i met her)
oh yea she was asking people to help her kill her mother
when i pointed out that “god” collected assault rifles and called himself evil she responded well i wish he wouldnt do that but hes god he does what he wants
the fact that she was in her 30’s did not affect the fact that she was the 1st human alive
the fact that she had a mother did not affect that
this iss the nature of delususion
a flat eartner will go to any lengths to believe the earth is flat including belieiving that they are pupets on a stage and the evil governments pulling the strings
just to preserve the delusion
reality ..facts..figures ..proof.. these cannot help them
yes those who are confused can be helped
but once they slip into delusion they need professional help
very likely a pill will make their flat earth round again
rhooManu PalmerReising Ha ha. Nice. It’s like seeing a straight banana and being convinced that bent bananas are just a lie.
slymonster Hope I didn’t make too much mistakes in the writing… rhooManu PalmerReising
@bobm73 @soaringeagle I am not a flat earth believer, but a good friend of mine is becoming one. Reading you two explain it in a plethora of ways to those like my friend falling for a simple video over thousands of years of human discovery makes me feel like I’m not the only one talking to a flat banana! But I was hoping you could help me understand a little bit more about the flight tracking in the southern hemisphere…and why they don’t or can’t. It’s my buddies latest argument since science and mathematics apparently don’t exist in their “domes” (heads). Any help or info to to putme in the right direction to continue to save my friends brain would be greatly appreciated.
ArdwinDaleSylvester well
its mostly a safety thing, the distances over water is much farther in the south
why
is that a factor/ planes use gps, to know where they are, but atc (air
traffic control) uses radar to track where planes are. theres 2 types of
radar, ground stations and radar in the nose cone of the planes
themselves
if you google radar flight tracking you will see a
pattern, over or near land the planes are 1 color (and fill the entire
space) over water another color (detected by airborne radar and relayed)
ground
based radar cannot see far out to sea at all ..because the earth is
curved its limited by the height of the radar antenna and the plane
plane to plane radar can see way way farther because both planes are high abobe the curve, 250 or more miles
but
ok lets say a plane has an electric fire, and a hydraulic failure ,
radar and gps fail, its hard to control they may lose radio too they
need a place to land they need to be known where they are in case they
ditch intothe sea..etc etc
flying north, then e/w then
south you are over land except short distances, covered by war more
radar coverage and far closer to a safe landing zone
thats it there’s gps coverage everywhere not radar, not enough to meet safetty needs
the disstances betwen emergency divert to safe landing locations is more then trippled
i’m
a pilot ..but a glider pilot we are constantly having to make
decisions like am i high enough to set off on this course and make it
to the next airport if i cant make it home, , constantly looking for
feilds in case we get too low too far from an airport, so i know all
aboout how you have to think when flying
but when the question of
southern flight routes kept coming up i went straight to the source.. a
forum for airline pilots where they discussed trans polar and
southerrn hemisphere flight routes
both exist
both are used
but
for safetty purposes they are considered oddball routes by the pilots
themselves and the lack of radar coverage and safe divert to locations
is why they are not used far more often.. they are not the safest
routes around
and safety is always top priority
when you
step into your car you don’t go through a 20 item checklist before
turning the key, then another before the end of the driveway and another
befre the 1st intersection and yet another before applying the brakes
flying
is a whole diferent animal from driving if your driving and you takke
a high risk route rescue is not long away and its likely someone will
co me by any minute to help you
but when your 500 miles from the
nearest plane, 1000 from anywhere to land, zand you have any sort of
emergency.. ypu got to find a place to land and fast
2 hours or more and people are gonna die
so thats it in a nutshel that even a nutcase should understand.. they want you alive when you arive
thats it
ArdwinDaleSylvester Hi, Ardwin – the Southern Hemisphere in general is an incredibly huge problem for any “flat Earth” model I’ve seen. The difficulty can readily be seen as follows:
Look at any description of the Earth provided by the “flat Earth” crowd; generally, these wind up looking like the kind of map generally referred to as a “north polar projection” – the whole Earth, made to fit within a circle centered on the North Pole. (This is like the “map” at the center of the UN flag, for example.) You’ll note two things about this – first, you obviously can’t show a single point as the SOUTH Pole on such a map (it winds up being spread around the whole outer border, the circle that encloses the whole thing), and second that the shapes of the Southern Hemisphere continents and oceans are SEVERELY distorted. Generally, the mapmakers try to limit the distortion of the land masses themselves (like South American and Australia) at the expense of stretching out the southern oceans a LOT.
Now, think about how one would travel between two points in the Southern Hemisphere IF the world really looked like this. Try, for instance, to plot a route between Sydney, Australia and Santiago, Chile. The SHORTEST route, if you stay with this sort of a map, winds up going through the NORTHERN Hemisphere, and in fact passes fairly close to the North Pole! But that clearly isn’t what happens; airlines fly these routes all the time (check out Qantas’s timetable for information on that particular route, for example) and with equipment that clearly doesn’t have the range to cover the route IF it were actually as you see it on this sort of map.
In fact, the known distances between various points on Earth are one clear and very firm proof that the Earth is, in fact, a sphere; you simply can’t come up with any “flat” model that can account for those, since it is impossible to project a spherical surface onto a flat plane with no distortion. It would be an even more obvious problem if a SOUTHERN polar projection were used as the “flat Earth” model, since most people (and most of the land) are in the North, and so the distortions would be more obvious to us. But they’re really no less of a problem in the usual north polar projectio just because most of us are more familiar with the Northern Hemisphere.
bobm73 ArdwinDaleSylvester funny part is they use the un flag as proof te earths flat and the un in on the lie
history of the un flag
it was originally created with only the northern hemisphere showing and centered on the united states since thats where the original conference was meant to be
once more nations joined it was recreated including the southern hemisphere and re-centered on the north pole as ‘neutral territory” to be all inclusive
http://anti-globe.boards.net/
zero11 Oh god, why.
@soaringeagle @bobm73
Thank you both for your kindness and knowledge. Both of your responses have given me better insight on a subject I know very little about. The only flight I’ve been on was a short hop from Los Angeles to Fresno.
No doubt this should be the last piece of the puzzle to dispell my friend from trying to argue an unprovable point until we both are in a senior living facility another 40 or so years from now.
“Should” being the operative word.
We’re like two bickering old straight guys out of the The Odd Couple. … In our late 30’s.
We’ll see how it goes. I’ll be sure to let you know. Thanks again.
ArdwinDaleSylvester you will never ens an argument with a flat earther with logic, reason, or common sense
they are immune to facts
actually alergic to logic and critical thinking
best you can do is make them realize that if they keep talking about such stuoid shit they will never have a date last past the “i think the earth is flat” statement’
and they will always be called an idiot and laughed at
https://t.co/YLSsMygH6y https://youtu.be/zEqDbsPUgH8 A couple of good videos that might keep you questioning things . These know alls troll this site 24/7 . You have to ask yourself why would someone bother doing that if they knew the earth was round . I know I would rather be doing something worth while than talk to to nut jobs but no, there here all the time and 5 months ago if you told me something stupid like that I laughed . But I would never had waisted my time arguing with people who thought the earth was flat . Don’t let them tell you you tube videos are not any good either . Some are very good but you have to first watch some then make your own mind up . Your mate has climbed down the rabbit hole like me . I’m not saying you do that but watch those two videos and do the tests yourself like I did then make your own decision
Austruth This video only proves that flat earthers don’t understand basis of physics.
So the maker of this video apparently believes that the Sun is alway at the zenith (which is the only case in which his “vertical lines” analogy would apply).
Further, why doesn’t he take the next step and calculate what he believes to be the altitude of the Sun from his assumed geometry? And why wouldn’t the position of the Sun shift dramatically when one is in an airplane either climbing to cruise altitude or descending for landing? These people just never seem to think through the implications of what they’re claiming.
bobm73 have you ever met a flat earther tht understood anything
1 yesterday told me theres no such thing as space, he wanted just 1 photo of video of a rocket leaving the atmosphere
guess they never used a search before took 10 secfonds to find him 20
but im certain they will say they are fake
bobm73 It’s their lack of joined-up thinking that enables their ignorance. If he had put a camera on the lower piece of cardboard to simulate what is actually happening, he could have seen the perspective that we see in the photo’s.
slymonster bobm73 joined-up or otherwise i think its just a lack of thinking period
i try to watch their videos but i cannot possibly follow the thought processes they use i feel my iq lowering by 2 points every 3 minutes ..is it any wonder most are an hour long or longer?
you could be a nobel winning physicist when you push play, and by the end of the vid need to wear a helmet and diapers and need help dressing yourself
these videos they produce have a dumbing down affect on anyone willing to watch the entire thing
by the time you watched several, you have brain damage and can no longer think
i swear they must have subliminal programming embedded in them in order to get anyone to believe such crap
Some dont, but others do. Remember that the community are normal citizens vs a dictating ideology of the globe model created by scientust who are obsessed with their status and fame
Blunite01 Actually, its paranoid delusional idiots who are proud to say education is brainwashing and “i rejected everything i was ever taught as a lie” vs every educated person on the planet
every scientist who ever lived in the past 3000 years
your being manipulated
and the shit doesnt make any sense..even to a child
they are not normal citizens..have you ever talkedto them they are immune to facts allergic to proof and they flat out eject what they can see with their own eyes
thats not normal its a mental disorder
and the leaders of the cult prey on the paranoid and gullible alike
make no mistake..it is a cult
what do cults do?
1 raise the leaders to savior like status “we are here to bring you the truth”
2 create a enemy nasa is lying t6o you
3 issolate you from your freinds family and anyone whod support you.. you start talking about this shit and you chase everyone away and they abandon you
and lastly brainwash you into a “group think” where only the accepted ideals of the group are accepted any other idea and your ridiculed pushed away and fconsidered an enemy
look at the way they talk
you give them proof that the earths a globe and they say your a paid governmet agent shill
thats not normal citizen behavior thats the behavior of cult members
That is the human logic that creates cults. As you spoke, you fluttered my eyes with brainwashing techniques. I choose to be free to question and free to accept. Ive been to church and your logic was just like them. No freedom to believe or think for ourselves. Brainwashing verses like science does their magical theories. Dont get me wrong. Science is firm, but psuedoscience is junk.
Blunite01 thats just it, this flat earth crap isnt even in the realm of psuedoscience its pure paranoid delusion
the fear of being insignificant and unimportant
they have to be the center of the universe and the universe created just for them….if even an alien microbe exists then they are less special
ask any flat earther what force causes the sun to revolve around ius..and they hve no answer.. its ego.. ego is the force tbat binds their tiny universe together and makes everything revolve around them.
their own self importance is all they need as proof they are the center of the universe and the only ones in on this great big secret
Blunite01 Over the past 100 years, scientists have been trying to disprove Einstein’s theory of gravity. Why, for their own fame of course. If I could disprove his theory of gravity I could make myself a multi millionaire. I wouldn’t have to ever work again. Scientists will always strive for a better explanation as to why things happen. What they won’t do is argue against observation. Gravity exists. It is a law of physics. It is something that every man beast and child can observe every moment of every day. What causes gravity may be debatable, but is also widely agreed on. Although Einstein’s theory and Newton’s theory of gravity is different (though not really by much) they both agree on the same principal observations. Einstein’s theory differs by the fact that he predicted that time would change as a result of gravity. Without his prediction and math, our GPS would not work at all. My father-in-law spent the last 20 years of his working life growing crystals for satellite timing systems. He know’s Einstein’s theory of relativity back to front, as do all satellite engineers. You really need to know what height your satellite will orbit at before constructing your clock. It needs to be extremely accurate and like all quartz watches, runs from the vibrations created by putting a crystal under pressure and running an electric current through it.
These things are no big secret, and can be shown to work with some basic schoolyard experiments. But the FE’ers have to deny that science has anything accurate to add to the debate. They are just so wrong.
Austruth Yep, all this shows is that FE’ers do not understand perspective or physics..
Austruth ask yourself why are these morons wasting so much time trying to convince you its flat.. we are trying to save the world from profound stupidity, their motives? well they are scared of feeling insignificant if the universe is vaste, if life could exist elsewhere then we are not ss special as we think
they fear being meaningles and insignificant
but stop watching those vids they are all lies they make no sense but if you dont think them through, and arent educated enough then they seem convincing
i dont mean any disrespect for a working man but you are a truck driver
i assume truck drivers do not need phd’s in astrophysics
they don’t need calculous trigonometry physics etc
so you are not prepared to see through the lies
im not as well ediucated as most here either
but i think critically, logically and use common sense
when you do that its easy to see through the lies they tell
but listen.. the people here are smart… smarter then me by far
smarter then any flat earther ..no, smarter then every flat earther combined…
stop watching those videos that rely on your lack of knowledge to confuse you
physics can explain everything
flat earth does not work in any way with the laws of physics
you have to stop watching those videos and rely only on the intelligent people here to bring you back to reality
we are only doing this to desperately try to help you
And this is why flat earth ideas exist. All the things you stated have been “debunked” by them and the counter facts are very convincing.
Blunite01 no they have not!! debunked?? by eliminating gravity moving the sun turning the iss all satellites and even the moon into a hologram by claiming millions of ohotos are fake by claiming a popular vacation spot nobody has ever been to withoit being shot
they cant debunk the truth they can only make up stupid nonsense
Blunite01 No. Just No. The Flat Earth proponents have not debunked anything. Their math is flawed at a very basic level, their physics is even more flawed. They claim that gravity does not exist and is ‘just a theory’. They have to do this as they know that a flat Earth is impossible in the presence of gravity. The FACT is that gravity exists, it is not just a theory, it is a law of physics. It is something every person on the planet observes every single day. Sure, we have a theory as to what CAUSES it, but there is no argument that it exists. That theory by the way ‘ Einstein’s theory’ is still trying to be disproven by scientists 100 years later. But all scientists agree gravity exists. Some want to disprove the ‘why’ as that would make them more famous than Einstein.
I am lucky enough to live on the South coast of England, on the Solent, one of the busiest shipping channels in the world. I see the curvature every day.
I have studied sea and land navigation. I have looked through some very powerful telescopes, I have travelled in planes extensively, I have climbed mountains and dived the seas.
The Earth is not flat. There is no evidence at all that the Earth is flat. Everything points to a globe Earth. Especially the 1200 active satellites that orbit the Earth every day. The pictures of the Earth taken from the moon, and from satellites 1 million miles away.
None of the ‘evidence’ for a flat Earth cannot be debunked in a few minutes by people who actually are able to think critically and have taken the time to look around and make proper observations.
Ha ha..you speak some shit . How about you take a photo of that curvature you see every day . Scientist would like to become famous and prove gravity….BUT THEY CANT!!!!
Well, no, they can’t – because the existence of Gravity was demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt well over two centuries ago, by Henry Cavendish (and yes, he did become famous). See:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-wire-was-used-to-measure-a-tiny-force-of-gravity/
I’ve taken atronomy. Gravity is an mysterious force. Yes it can be measured and yes it exists, but we dont know what it is. Its litrally magic until somebody makes a break through.
Blunite01
“I’ve taken atronomy. Gravity is an mysterious force. Yes it can be measured and yes it exists, but we dont know what it is. Its litrally magic until somebody makes a break through.”
In the extreme, ALL forces are “mysterious” in that we don’t really know what creates them. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have VERY accurate descriptions of how they behave, and for the purposes of this discussion, that’s all we really need. The effects of gravity (or any of the other fundamental forces) can be very, very accurately predicted, and they behave very, very consistently. They’re not “magic” – that word implies that you can’t understand either the cause OR the effect, and that’s simply not the case here.
There ARE, however, some very good theories as to what is the “cause” of gravity, the current best model being Einstein’s interpretation of gravity as being the result of mass distorting space-time. What more do you need in order to compare the models of the universe we’re talking about here?
The bottom line is that if you acknowledge that gravity exists, and that it behaves as described by the well-known models, then the “flat Earth” model is literally impossible; it CANNOT be correct.
I called it magic meaning unknown. We dont knkw what gravity is and how it works. Einstiens theories arent all considered aceptable. Even with his theory, gravity is a force that we dont know. My professor said “Wanna get famous? Just figure out what gravity is.” Flat Earth model works with anything. If the Earth is flat, we don’t have the support to prove our case. We’ve asked NASA and they turn their backs on us which I find shady. They petend Flat Earth doesnt exist yet hint us to shut up. We’ve asked for defenite proof including things that would once snd for all proof a flat earth, but all NASA says is “Shut up and believe.” We just want the truth and their cooperation would end this case. So you cant blame for mislead people. Things dont add up for them. They may be mislead, but they arent crazy or trying to be bad. They just suspect a new idea and are open to changing their minds if given the data needed.
Blunite01
“Flat Earth model works with anything.”
But it DOESN’T – that’s the whole point, which apparently you refuse to even consider. The “flat Earth model”is physically IMPOSSIBLE – ESPECIALLY if you acknowledge that gravity exists and behaves as traditionally described. I’ve posted many of the problems with that model, and others have as well – yet you simply ignore them, and refuse to actually work out these problems for yourself. How is that POSSIBLY an example of an “open mind”?
“We’ve asked NASA and they turn their backs on us which I find shady.”
Really? How has anyone ever “asked NASA” seriously, and not ridiculed the responses you are given? And OF COURSE they “turn their backs on you.” It is not NASA’s job to teach basic physics and geometry to the ignorant; that’s not what we pay them to do.
“They petend Flat Earth doesnt exist yet hint us to shut up.”
No, they’re not “petending” that the flat Earth doesn’t exist – they KNOW IT DOESN’T. Anyone with anything resembling a decent freshman-level physics education knows it doesn’t as well. And no one is “hinting” you to shut up; they just don’t want to be bothered with your nonsense (again, they have much better things to do). You are, if anything, being laughed at. No one can possibly take these notions seriously, they have SO many gaping holes, impossible claims, and contradictions in them.
“We’ve asked for defenite proof including things that would once snd for all proof a flat earth”
I’m not at all sure what you’re asking there – could you PLEASE try to proofread what you write? – but again, how is it NASA’s job to “prove” ANYTHING to you? The fact that you’ve failed to understand basic physics and geometry is simply not their concern.
“but all NASA says is “Shut up and believe.””
Nonsense. NASA could not possibly care less what you believe. It simply DOES NOT MATTER. You can entertain whatever crackpot ideas about the universe you want, it’s not going to affect NASA or their goals one tiny little bit. You are IRRELEVANT, and this is by your own choice. And you have already been given MORE than enough proof that the flat Earth idea is complete nonsense; you simply refuse to even consider it.
bobm73 Blunite01 i even called nasa asking to interview them to debunk the flat earth nonsense and couldn’t even get a call back
why would they even entertain anything this stupid? they are geniuses why would they ever want to talk to morons?
and id like to add that you don’t need a freshmen knowledge of physics to know the earths not flat…4th graders know its not flat
Blunite01 Why would you turn NASA, since you don’t believe the millions of photo and videos they have?
Austruth You are kidding right? Scientists have proven gravity. It is one of those physical laws that cannot be ignored, It is, it just is. You may be talking about the fact that some scientists argue over what causes gravity, but they all agree it exists. And after 100 years, scientists are still trying to break Einstein’s model of gravity, unsuccessfully.
To say that science cannot prove gravity exists shows a very serious misunderstanding of science at a very basic level.
Austruth look at the horizon theres the curve
gravity was prove a long time ago and the people that proved it ARE famous
THEY CAN, AND THEY DID
No curve exists.
Blunite01
“No curve exists.”
Prove it. The curvature has been shown, demonstrated, and photographed countless times. If there’s no curve, then the Sun would never go down below the horizon. If there’s no curve, then airline flights in the Southern Hemisphere could not possibly be completed per their schedule. If there’s no curve, you could see Cuba from Florida, and you could see the Sun from ANYWHERE.
You can make these nonsensical, ignorant assertions until you’re blue in the face, but they don’t change anything. Until and unless you can present actual evidence, you have no reason whatsoever to expect ANYONE to take you seriously.
Go look yourself. Youtube it. I’ve been up high in a historical sight and there is no curvature.
Blunite01 There isn’t a side of a case. There is fact and then there is stupidity. You choice to be on the side of stupidity.
Blunite01 really? if no curve exists you should be able to see the other side of the ocean..right
i mean from the coast of france, new york city is closer …and bigger then your 32 mile 2000 mile away sun yet you cant see the entire 4000 mile coastline of north and south america combined let alone new york city
why can you see a tiny sun farther then you can see a giant land mass
oh wait.. cause theres a curve blocking your view
why don’t you try thinking things through
i swear the entire goal of the flat earth cult is to destroy your ability to think clearly
That’s why we are in this debate . People like me finally had a look for themselves . No curve . I watched s ship sail out into the Great Barrier Reef . I watched it for 1-1/2 hours and I estimate it was at least 25-30 miles out when it was a dot on the horizon but I could see the shape of it the whole way . No need speaking shit about Gravity when that happens . There is no curve .
Austruth OK, then all you have to do is to explain why Cuba can NEVER EVER be seen from Florida, and you’ll have me as a convert.
Go ahead, I’m waiting.
I live in Australia num nuts , how could I ?.
Austruth
“I live in Australia num nuts , how could I ?.”
Well, let’s see – you could try to explain it using whatever “flat Earth” model you believe, and simple math. I’m not sure how where you live would affect your ability to do that, unless they just don’t teach geometry at all in Australia.
By the way, the word you’re looking for, I believe, is “numb.”
But since you seem to think where you live is relevant, maybe you could instead explain the following to me: Why is it that on a clear night, you can see the Southern Cross, but I can’t? Or why I can see the North Star and the Big Dipper, but you can’t? Just how does that work, if the Earth is flat?
Or are you just completely and doggedly blind to all the many, MANY problems the flat Earth model has?
Well I’ll need to be there to take a photo or film it don’t I ? I don’t even know how far it is but I’ll check it out but I guess it would be the law of backwards refraction not allowing you to see something . How that for speaking shit . Might get s job with you three soon
Austruth you dont need to know how far it is on a flat earth you would see every coast from every coast
nothing to block your view youd see everywere
thats what flat means
can you see someone sitting across the table from you? yes
can you see them under thbe table? no
get it?
soaringeagle Austruth I think I get it France isn’t bright enough to see from New York, the Sun is.
Oh wow this flat Earth stuff is fun take the logic out of thinking.
Austruth can you see america from australia?
Austruth Good Grief You estimated it, how did you do that? Could you see the water line,or just the superstructure which is well above the horizon,
Austruth
By the way, while you’re at it, would you also care to take a crack at explaining this person’s experience?
http://www.forbes.com/2003/04/22/cz_jc_0422feat.html
Looks pretty curved to me…
I suppose when Virgin Galactic gets their suborbital flights going, you’ll discount any reports of a curved Earth coming from those people, too, right?
If you talking about that photo it looks flat to me . And my experience is I could still see a ship from 25 miles away . Impossible on a curved earth .
Austruth
“And my experience is I could still see a ship from 25 miles away . Impossible on a curved earth.”
Not impossible at all. You didn’t describe either your viewing position or the size of the ship, and by your own statement the “25 miles away” bit is just a guess on your part. It’s clearly NOT impossible on a curved Earth, since the Earth is, in fact, curved – you just don’t have all the data you need. Tell me, do you ever see the Sun come up (or go down, I forget which coast you’re on) from that same position? How could that happen if the Earth is flat?
And how about answering all those OTHER questions?
I underestimated with the 25 miles . It could of been 30-35 . How fast does a 200 meters ship travel in 1-1/2 hours . That’s how far it was out , I don’t give a fuck what you fiddling figures are about how high I was . It might have been 12 ft . That does not make me see a whole ship from that distance .
Austruth ships do not move fast .. 15 mph is typical
again BS!!! They travel between 28-35 knots . So my estimation of 25 would be an underestimation. Stop arguing you losing badly .
Austruth knots not mph
Austruth They can but don’t and I imagine that to a big ship even 25 mile is thought of as being close to shore and they go slower,especially if there is something like a barrier reef near by.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/25/slow-ships-cut-greenhouse-emissions
Even at your 15 miles per hour it would be 22.5 miles out so curvature 340 ft . So there you go . I call BS on your curved earth
Austruth your calculations are way off
No there not . What figures do you have . Oh because I was 12 ft up . A ship that size might be 100 ft tall . give me your figures on 25 miles at 12 ft high ?
Austruth all your figures are off speed distance curve all of it
Well what are they ? Give me your figures . You don’t want to as it proves your full of it
Austruth i would need an aviation weather report for soaring for that local area to give you proper figures .. you see without that theres no way to tell how much refraction exists
we would need the speed of the ship…wicch you can’t know without contacting the ship, we wouldned the height of the ship , and i would love to know how you can guess at 22 miles
i’m a pilot at 1 mile up football feilds are tiny dots, 2 miles up large quarries or industrial complexes are tiny dots
this is where your “figures’ fall apart a ship that size viewed with the naked eye is a tiny dot at only a couple miles
http://images.military.com/media/news/conflicts/ronald-reagan-korea-804-ts600.jpg
this line of battleships on maneuvers is just between 1/4 mile to 2 3/4 miles yes the aircraft carier is alot larger then the battleships and destroyers following it but all arevery larhe ships, notice how they become like a dot in only a couple miles
at 25 miles a 5 mile long ship ..if 1 existed that big would be smaller then the head of a pin
you want to believe this nonsense so badly that you way way way over exagerate things you see
have you ever flown over the ocean at 35,000 feet? have you ever seen a ship on the ocean below you?
thats only 6 miles, and yet you will not spot a ship, not even as a dot till your under 10,000 feet or 2 miles
and even then your l,ookin g for a dot…
search and rescue planes and coptors tend to stay in the 3000-6000 foot range, this gives them some distance ..a 30 mile view range while being low enough to see a ship clearly, at 30 miles they may see a glimmer of reflected light, or a flare and investigate but they are more likely to get a radar blip to look into
theres not alot of chance without powerful binoculars to see anything even the size of the titanic beyond a couple miles
so your claim of seeing a ship at 25 miles is absolute bs
Please stop replying . You contradict yourself . I can clearly see the bottom of this ship from 7 miles . I know it’s 7 miles as the island port beside it is that far . And it is still big . If you say that should be so tiny then how the hell do I see the Iss from 1000 miles away. Well that’s what my ISS tracker tells me it is but you will give me some BS excuse for how I can see the sun shining of it do don’t bother . How about we get someone else on here instead of you 3 know all know nothing airheads to talk or are you the only ones left ?
Austruth no read the name of the orum “smarter then that’ if anyone should stop replying its you
you see the iss as a dot of light
you do not see the iss, you see the reflected light from the iss thats all
dude your a fucking truck driver.. truchk drivers are not well known to be educated
every single person here is better educated then you
maybe you should pay attention to those who are desperately trying to help educate you
why are you here? your here cause you want the truth
you know your confused you know you will never convince people smarter then you to think such stupid things.. so why don’t you lose the attitude and get the help you so desperatel,y need to understand things
and yes the sun reflects off the iss
it also spreads after being reflected
how can i not give you truthful explanation? how can you call the most logical explanation bs/?
you are aware that truck drivers and physicists have a massive difference in education
Austruth By the way, how do you explain the planets movements in the sky ? Because when you use heliocentrism, all planets movements are correct and circular, but if you use geocentrism, other planets are doing absolutely dumb movements.
rhooManu Austruth i’ve had flat earthers say that space is fake, there are no other planets se are the only 1 some say the stars and planets are projections on a dome.. they have incredibly stupid explanations for everything…but none make sense
Austruth Oh, and if you don’t believe in gravity, how can you explain that a golf bal and a bowling ball are falling at the same speed ?
rhooManu Austruth forget a golf ball and bowling ball, in a vacuum, a 20 ton truck, and a feather fall at the same speed
Austruth How could you see the ISS at all? If you think the Earth is flat, there can’t possibly be a space station in orbit around it. You must be seeing some sort of illusion!
bobm73 Haha, good point ! Austruth
Exactly my point . What is it and how high is it ?
Austruth Above 400km, globally. But if you don’t believe there’s ISS, you don’t believe in satellites. So you deny using GPS, television, and you don’t use meteo programs, right?
Austruth Well, I’m going to go way, way out on a limb here, but given that you can actually SEE the thing through a halfway decent telescope, I’m going to say that it’s a space station, that it’s roughly 360 feet by 240 feet, and it’s in orbit at an altitude of roughly 220-250 miles. It’s been occupied at various times by over 200 people from 15 different countries; 8 of those people were private citizens, “space tourists” who paid for the experience. But I guess they just must all be part of the conspiracy, right?
By the way, take a look at the photos under “Method 2” on the following page:
http://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/
Gee, there it is; at exactly the place and exactly the size it’s supposed to be. That’s going to be kind of hard to explain, isn’t it?
So given all this, what do YOU think it is, now?
250 miles away is only if it is straight up . My tracker on the NASA (ha haaaaa) APP, tell me it is 1000 miles away at 10 degrees . I don’t think so . Something that is that size and 1000 miles away cannot be seen by the Nakad eye IMO.
Austruth “Something that is that size and 1000 miles away cannot be seen by the Nakad eye IMO.”
Really? OK, since you’re now claiming to be an expert on what is and is not visible to the naked eye, please tell us how large and/or how bright it WOULD have to be to be seen from 1000 miles away.
(I’ve got my numbers ready to go on this, by the way; we’ll compare them as soon as you’ve got your answer figured out, OK?)
So a ship is a dot n the ocean from 25 miles but the ISS can be seen from 1000 mile . Ha ha you guys are off your head
Austruth How big are signalling mirrors, the kind you buy for ‘survival’? I’ll give you a clue, they are tiny. In broad daylight, reflecting the sun off one of those things in the correct direction can really get you noticed from a good few miles away. Now think about how much more noticeable that would be if everything around you was black.
So yes, you can see the sun reflecting off the ISS at hundreds of miles away, but you can’t make out any details, unless you use a telescope/bins or a decent telephoto lens.
Austruth why cant it, you are seeing only the brightness of the sun reflected off of it, that same brightness that you see from 94 million miles way and it hurts your eyes
the light reflected off the glass on your wristwatch can be seen ma ny miles away and thats 1 inch accross
you got a whole lot of opinions but not very many facts
heres a tip..youtube can be used to rot your mind, or expand your mind
if you stop believing nasa is some evil liar then you can learn a hell of alot watching science, physics and yes nasa videos
Orion re entering the atmosphere from 125000 ft . Guess that forgot to add the curve
Austruth Re-entering from WHERE? According to your model, it’s impossible for a spacecraft to be orbiting the Earth. So this must be one of those “CGI” pictures you flat-Earth types are so fond of, right?
Do you REALLY not see the huge contradictions that come up in virtually every aspect of the supposed “flat Earth” model?
By the way, are you ever going to answer any of the other questions that have come up? Have you called Qantas yet and asked about that flight to South America? Or have you asked anyone if they can see Lord Howe Island from the coast? Why not? I mean, if you’re REALLY so interested in discovering the truth, you’d THINK you’d want to really look into these things – rather than just being another sheep who follows the flat-Earth nutjobs without question.
You are a bit of a wally aren’t you ? . I know nothing of where lord Howe Island is and don’t care . Too far out to sea I know that . You don’t seem to though as i think or your playing dumb. If you remember I know flight do exist to Sth America. My ex boss works there now . That photo is to show you NASA is full of shit . The guy that jumped out of that capture
Out of that pod had a huge curve at the same altitude . So who do we believe ? Not NASA that’s for sure .
Austruth 1 was a regular lens the other was an anti fisheye lens that caused an inversed curve
who are you to believe? try the smart people not the insane paranoid delusional idiots that proudly proclaim education is brainwasshing and all facts are lies
Austruth And now you think NASA had something to do with Felix Baumgartner’s jump? Excuse me for a moment….
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….
(Whew. OK, glad I got that out of my system, Now, where was I?…oh, yes….)
Funny, but when the “huge curve”photos were last discussed, it was rightly noted that the appearance of those photos was due to the use of a wide-angle lens. (And distortion from camera lenses is consistently cited by the FE crackpots as being the source of ALL such curvature in phtotos.) So now you want us to believe that all cameras should be trusted and the supposed “straight line” horizon accurately reflects reality? It’s interesting because if you look at it closely, the horizon in the photo you mentioned actually curves UPWARD slightly (again, a rather obvious optical distortion).
Austruth Again, you’re talking about people that are supposed to maintain the biggest lie of the history with technical possibilities beyond any comparison, BUT they’re dumb enough to “forget to add a curve” ?
I repost this : http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/agNzKVw_460s.jpg According to your “proofs”, tomatoes are flat too. OR, maybe you just can’t see a curve if you’re not far enough, and this is the same for earth. Where did you found this “12500 ft”, exactly ? Because this video your picture is from is about Orion etering the thermosphere, at only 100km up. The ISS is orbiting at 400km.
You’re doing exactly what any conspiracy lover do : denying facts, taking only small pieces of videos/pictures that show what you want and try your best to forget all the reste.
And, just in case you didn’t see the whole video (and I bet you don’t, so here it is : http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/196319-nasa-releases-spectacular-video-of-orion-re-entering-the-earths-atmosphere), you can see it’s a reverse fish-eye cam. So its not rounding objets, it’s flattening it, and you can see at the beginning that the earth appear counter-curved because of this.
rhooManu Austruth
“I repost this : http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/agNzKVw_460s.jpg”
Oh, that is just too good! I’m keeping a copy of that one! (And OF COURSE tomatoes are flat! How else could you explain pizza?)
(Mmmmmmmmmm…..pizza…..)
bobm73 Finally, someone who like my image ! o/ And… Yeah, pizza ! rhooManu Austruth
I went for 40 years believing . People want to believe we can go to Mars . Ha ha no chance . How the hell could we control the rover on Mars from this far . Mobile phone calls drop out all the time . Then they want us to believe they have a craft moving at 15000 miles P/h being remote controls through an asteroid belt to take photos of a planet . IMPOSSIBLE !!! I got out straight away in asteroid back in the 80,s put my 20c back in and have anothe go . Not there…1 mistake bang 1 trillion dollars . Bullshit!!! people wake up . Smell what these guys are shovelling .
Austruth “I went for 40 years believing.”
And then, apparently, you took leave of your senses.
“People want to believe we can go to Mars.”
They don’t have to “want to believe.” It’s already happened, at least to the extent of getting a fair number of robotic probes and rovers there.
“Ha ha no chance .”
And you base this judgement on your long training and extensive experience in the fields of space science and communications engineering, right?
“How the hell could we control the rover on Mars from this far . Mobile phone calls drop out all the time.”
So let me get this straight – you believe the Mars rovers are being controlled through cell phone technology?
“Then they want us to believe they have a craft moving at 15000 miles P/h being remote controls through an asteroid belt to take photos of a planet. IMPOSSIBLE !!!”
And again, you’re basing this on your own thorough knowledge of the technology involved, right?
“I got out straight away in asteroid back in the 80,s put my 20c back in and have anothe go .”
I’m sorry, but could you please have another go at that sentence? This time in English, perhaps?
bobm73 Austruth yea that last sentence sure showed his level of education and inteligence
we are arguing astrophysics …with a truck driver
who only has to know how to shift gears and wich pedal makes it go wich makes it stop
have you ever listened to a cb radio on a ,long cross country trip, or stopped at a truck stop for bite to eat?
they are not the smartest people in the world… thats why they drive trucks and don’t invent things or study things..
are we really expecting a truck driver to understand more then stop, go, drink coffee piss and shit …and maybe pick up a nieve young hitchiker for a quick blowjob on the way?
remember who your talking to…a truck driver.. they choose that profession because they are either too dumb, or too lazy to get educated
no offence to truck drivers some are nice people, . but never met 1 that was remotely smart
i have met many that were habitual liars however..their lives were so empty and boring making up stories mde them more interesting..or so they think
i think this guy is just trying to seem interesting, making claims to see things nobody else can see ..like ships 27 miles away
the longest distance you could see such a ship , the top of the ship, would be 9 miles, (unless theres a ttemperature inversion)
but he wants to claim to see it at 27 miles all the time…he just doesnt want to seem like a boring truck driver
soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth
“we are arguing astrophysics …with a truck driver”
OK, let’s be really careful here – you can’t judge someone’s intelligence by their job. I happen to know at least one truck driver with a Ph.D. (he simply got really tired of the life he was living, working in his “chosen field,” and chucked it all in favor of being a long-haul trucker). On the other hand, I’ve also known Ph.D.s who barely had the sense to come in out of the rain. Intelligence and rational thinking is something you demonstrate; your job, per se, isn’t a reliable indicator. Do you think someone should be judging YOU from, say, your dreadlocks? (And don’t tell me no one ever has…)
Having said that, I do think that sticking stubbornly to the “flat Earth” model in the face of the overwhelming amount of contrary evidence clearly is NOT the most rational position.
bobm73 soaringeagle Austruth your right
my freind robbie, lives in a tipi with ties flying from the tipi poles, he wears a suite made of ties and his business card lists 5-6 phd’s, ceo of like 8 fortune 500 companies but in bright red bold text under all his other credentials the 1 he is most proud of “and also an accomplished apple picker”
i also knew a mathamatician who claimed “people should not havve sex, cause animals have sex, animals cannot do math, since only people can do math people should not do things animals do”
i reminded him that animals breathe
soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth What do you do that is so grand that you can talk down to someone in that manner?
bobm73 Austruth how do you know without a shadow of doubt that we have a rover on Mars? Did you see it? Do you see it now? Did you build it? Ship it? I mean…all of these dick-headed responses are all subjective, all your data. I am not a flat earther, but to insist that data given to you, the raw truth is we know nothing about anything until it is experienced. Our understanding of physics is elementary at best, likewise of gravity. Which by the way is not a proven fact, it is still a theory. Newtons calculus is flawed, he stated so himself, implementing variables for it to make sense. Regurgitating the same shit others have regurgitated is not intelligence, it is blind following, much like people who go to church but never read the bible. You know what we learned in the military? Their is no compensation for the curvature of the Earth when shooting at 1000m.
gharrison “just a theory” → Okay, you totally ignore what is a scientific theory. A theory isn’t just an idea someone got one day and just said “oh yeah, that’s it”. A theory is a widely approved, tested, experimented schema that works in every situation, and verified by a really, really wide buch of facts. A scientist doesn’t try to prove he’s right: he tries his best to prove he’s wrong, and it’s only when, after enough time of tring to break his own idea by any way, that he’ll began to verify it’s useable in every condition. Only then, it can be accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community, who will try to break it again until they’ll admit it’s a good one.
Gravity IS a proven fact, just because it’s happening. You can’t say “sun is not a fact”, sun is here, as for gravity. Not knowing what causes it don’t mean we don’t understand it or that it doesn’t exist at all.
And it’s totally normal that the curvature of the earth have no effect at such a small distance.
rhooManu gharrison 1.2k Views • Upvoted by https://www.quora.com/profile/Jay-Wacker, physicist, phd+postdoc+facultyhttps://www.quora.com/profile/Leo-C-Stein has https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-law-or-a-theory# in https://www.quora.com/topic/Physics.Gravity is a phenomenon. https://www.quora.com/topic/General-Relativity is a theory of gravity. The word “law” does not have a very precise definition in physics: the sense of the word is different in “Newton’s laws”, “Kepler’s laws”, “Gauss’s law”, and a “conservation law”. People often refer to the Newtonian theory of gravity as “Newton’s law of gravity”, but theory is a better term.
gharrison Full Definition of flower
1 a : the part of a seed plant that normally bears reproductive organs : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blossom, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inflorescence
b : a shoot of the sporophyte of a higher plant that is modified for reproduction and consists of a shortened axis bearing modified leaves; especially : one of a seed plant differentiated into a calyx, corolla, stamens, and carpels
c : a plant cultivated for its blossoms
rhooManu gharrison what does that have to do with anything..did you even read who posted that?
rhooManu gharrison One of many physicists, that agree with that statement.
rhooManu gharrison that is with 2 minutes of looking into the THEORY of gravity. It is not law, nor will it ever be until we can understand how it works in space, definitively. Gravity does not operate the same way everywhere…that is why it is still a theory. Don’t try to state that because we have an elementary understanding (at best) of how it works on Earth, means absolutely dick.
gharrison You sould read what you just posted. You said “gravity is not a fact, just a theory”. I explained that a theory isn’t just an idea that came up from the ass of someone. Then you paste a quote that said “gravity is a phenomenon, and there’s theories about it”, which is exactly the opposite of what you said (if it’s a phenomenon, it’s happening for sure, so, it’s not “just a theory”), and has nothing to do with the explanation of how a theory is made up.
So, I paste the definition of flower, because it has as much to do with everything than yours: nothing.
rhooManu gharrison Gravity is a theory..period. Read about it. way more people in the scientific community understand that, to label it a Law is misguided, if it is not a Law, it is a theory.
gharrison Nope, it’s “a phenomenon”, said your quote.
rhooManu gharrison which isn’t Law, or do you not understand the difference between law and theory? Wasn’t my quote by the way..must have missed the part at the top. The part where it states who wrote it, ya know…a physicist. Law is not a usable term for our understanding of gravity. It is subject to change, which by definition in the scientific community means, it is theory.
gharrison “Your quote” means “the quote you posted”.
Okay, I do it again:
You: “Gravity is just a theory, not a fact”
Me: “Gravity is happening + definition of a scientific theory”
You: “here’s a quote !”
The Quote: “Gravity is happening, and there’s theory about how gravity works”
Really, you can’t see the point ? Gravity isn’t a theory. There’s theories about how gravity works. You can’t say “gravity isn’t a law”, it’s nonsense: gravity is a statued fact: it happen. It exists, it’s there. The studies on how gravity works are theories. The studies, not gravity itself. This is exactly the point of the quote.
And the facts that it’s only theories and not laws only mean that it’s not fully established (and like you said, subject to changes). It doesn’t mean that it’s not working, of false. Those theories made us able to land a probe on a small asteroid or reach Pluto after a 10 years trip in space.
rhooManu gharrison here it is again…Gravity is most accurately described in Einsteins “Theory of Relativity” circa 1915. A theory inside of a theory. Additionally, the implication of “to date”should not be overlooked.
gharrison rhooManu it exists..thats the point.. call it law theory or pudding it still exists
get it yet?
theoretically you exist..
it cant be proven its not a law.. yet there you are
you can have the theory that we exist only because we believe we exist, or we exist only because others believe we exit.. or whatever theory you want.. but the fact that you are there..and gravity is there..is unchanged by semantics
rhooManu gharrison Illusion is observable, does that mean it is law as well?
rhooManu gharrison A law is just a part of a theory that can be stated in the form of a single sentence or a single equation. Newton’s law of gravity is the statement that the force by which a particle of mass M acts on a particle of mass m has magnitude GMm/r2 and direction from m to M. Newton’s theory of gravity is the framework that contains this law and everything else you need to calculate the motion of particles influenced by this law. A theory doesn’t ever stop being a theory just because sufficient evidence to support it has been found. There’s no word that means “theory with lots of evidence to support it”.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-theory-and-law.309324/
rhooManu gharrison their is no in between.
rhooManu gharrison If that post has nothing to do with our discussion, then you obviously did not read it. So let me simplify it for you, Gravity is most accurately described in Einsteins “Theory of Relativity” circa 1915. A theory inside of a theory.
gharrison rhooManu it does operate the same everywhere..in space too
where do you get these crazy ideas
soaringeagle gharrison rhooManu How the fuck can you possibly know that…how can anyone possibly know that…no one possibly can considering we have yet to physically even land on another planet. You think gravity operates the same everywhere? LOL…not even Einstein knew that…nor Hawking, or Newton. Surely your not saying because a man dropped an apple from a tree and crunched some numbers, as did peers, that it means that is how it functions everywhere. The bottom line is: we cant possibly know that, period. To say that is how it works is beyond ignorant and lacking in critical thinking. You sound like a fool, an arrogant one at that to basically state you know more than some of the greatest physicists in history, who all say, this is all theory thru observation to our own LIMITED experimentation.
gharrison soaringeagle rhooManu We landed on the we sent probes to Mars, but since you don’t even believe in gravity, what’s the point.
rhooManu gharrison Except it is specifically stated one has to adhere to the curvature at 1000m for long-range shooting. Which is utterly false.
rhooManu gharrison nd actually that’s exactly how all theory starts..hence the name.
rhooManu gharrison and if it worked in every situation, it would be referred to as Law, which it is not referred to as by 80% of the physicists on the planet.
gharrison There’s a “Edit” function.
gharrison bobm73 Austruth define “shooting’ laser guided missiles gps guided missiles or simple ballistics i guess you never read the manual. or ever hit the target because there is compensation for the curve read the military sharpshooters manual
you should edit to say “what i didn’t learn…but should have’
soaringeagle gharrison bobm73 Austruth Wich has been shown to be total bs, in regards to 1000m, which they use to state has to be taken into account. If nothing else it proves how things change, what is accepted and what is not.
gharrison soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth show me where it was proven bs why is it still in the manuals and taught.. 1 guy..and only 1 guy claimed it was bs and that guy was a missile systems instructor, the missile he taught was a system you input coordinates, push a button and the computer guides it to its destination.. he did not need to know how to compensate for the curve of the earth
he even admitted to never even looking at the documentation on how the computer guidance system works
all he knew how to train on was inoutting te data to guide it to its destination..thats it
nothing was proven bs he was just proven unqualified for his position
Austruth asteroides are thousands of miles apart
the chance youd hit 1 even withoit radar telling you where they are is extremely tiny
the rovers they sent data packkets gtoo, instructions that programmed it what to do for hoiurs at a time , it took about 15 minutes for a data packet to get there but thety got there
they did not use cell cignals they used radio waves, radio wave travel forever, we listen to radio transmissions frim the stars (no thety are not radio stations from alien planets, stars emit radio frequencies that we listen to)
Austruth So you think they have enough technology that people don’t know anything about to produce holograms, BUT you don’t think they can have a more powerfull system than public cellphones?
Okay. Did you even heard about satellite phone, for example? It’s juste a single example, you can even buy one; it’s a bit expensive (well, not more than an iPhone) but you can. This system allow worldwilde Wireless coverage with no gap. And this is used all over the world, by workers that travels a lot. So you can’t just think about a better phone system, and you pretend to know what NASA use?
You don’t even know how a wave work, do you? It’s a lot easier to send a radio wave in the void of space than on earth, because there’s nothing to speed down the wave. They go at lightspeed (light is just a wave too). The Voyager1 probe is 19 000 000 000 km, and it take 17hours (at lightspeed, remember) to reach earth. Voyager probes has a 3,7m antenna, and send high frequencies waves at 8Ghz (it was the highest they had at that time ; now they use 31Ghz), with a 23 watts power. And it’s received on earth by the DSN, a network of 3 stations at US, Spain and Australia, which have at least one antenna of more than 70m diameter that can detect about 0,000 000 000 000 000 001 watts. 23 watts is like a huge yell fort those.
Yet, it’s not that simple. The more a wave travels, the more it get parasites noises. So it’ll come a day when they won’t be able to receive anything but noise frequency from Voyager probes. ANYWAY, yes this is achieved. Because waves travels easily in space and because they don’t use your silly little phone connection.
You can deny anything, it won’t make this untrue. The fact that you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s not happening or doesn’t exist. Neil Degrasse Tyson said this true thing: “good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it”.
Yet, you can’t answer my questions about the distance between South africa and South america, or on what lies the flat earth. But me, I can explain to you how gravity works, why a tennis ball and a bowling ball are falling at the same speed, why the sun is yellow, why the sky is blue by daytime, and this is just some basic physic.
rhooManu Austruth As an amateur radio (“ham”) operator myself, I can’t help but toss this in re the above topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRP_operation
Note the record listed here: 1,650 miles on 1 MICROWATT. The 23W noted above for the Voyager transmitter is, of course, 23 MILLION times stronger. And on a much higher frequency.
And in honor of our Australian flat-Earther here, let me paraphrase “Crocodile” Dundee: “Antenna? THAT’S not an antenna – THIS is an antenna!”
http://www.cdscc.nasa.gov/Pages/antennas.html
(Anyone want to figure out the gain of a 70 meter dish at 8 GHz?)
rhooManu Austruth
Also see:
http://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html
Oddly enough, I see that just as I was writing the above, DSS-43, the big dish at Canberra, was in use communicating with Voyager 2!
bobm73 Really good link, didn’t know this one! rhooManu Austruth
Austruth For once you maybe right landing humans on Mars might not happen in our lifetime, but what difference does that make, you don’t believe we went to the moon, do you?
Austruth +
what is it? the biggest space station ever built, how high is it? well, all space stations operate in the thermosphere, technically within the atmosphere, but where the atmosphere is so thin that its a 1/2 mile between each molecule
how high is it varies slightly as it is moving at about 14,000 mph those widely spaced molecules colliding with it tends to make it slowly drift downwards, all space stations because they operate lower then satellites require to be ‘boosted’ every so often to a higher orbit, the older space stations relied on supply ships that were docked to the station to fire their engines and boost them to a higher orbit, i think the iss is the 1sst 1 thats capable of self boosting
here this is a complete tour of the iss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBm0Dpfj_k
Yeah I’m going to sit through a film that has a chick with moose in her hair to keep it up .
Austruth Odd sort of “moose” [sic] that keeps the hair up but still leaves it flexible enough to move like that, isn’t it?
Why NOT “sit through” the film? Are you really that afraid of learning something?
bobm73 Austruth its also a moose that keeps her floating in mid air for an hour
Austruth watch it..its not moose, its the lack of gravity
see you really really dont want the truth do you you love to be lies to you will watch hours of flat eartth lies yet you will not watch 1 single real video/
i wonder how the moose manages to make her float off the ground for over an hour
soaringeagle Austruth Yeah, keeping her floating for over an hour in full view of a camera is a neat trick; normally, the longest you can get in free-fall, at least without going into orbit, is about 30 seconds or so aboard an airplane doing parabolic arcs (as in the infamous “Vomit Comet”).
Of course, moose ARE pretty big and strong…;-)
And a little aside here, kids – you are NOT in “zero gravity” when you are in orbit. You are in free fall, which behaves pretty much the same way, but there is a very significant difference. If you were at the altitude of the ISS, but NOT moving forward at orbital speed. you would fall; you ARE still well within Earth’s gravity, and at that altitude you would have almost your full normal surface weight. If you were stationary with respect to the surface below you, you would fall essentially straight down. It would take a while for your dessicated remains to make it all the way, but fall you would.
So why does the ISS (and everything/everyone aboard) remain in orbit, and why does it SEEM like there is no gravity there? Very simple – it’s moving fast enough that the downward acceleration due to gravity is matched by the Earth’s surface “falling away” due to its curvature. You are in essence “falling around” the planet. (Another common explanation for this is that the “centrifugal force” on an object at orbital velocity exactly matches the force of gravity, which is accurate as far as it goes but brings in some possible misconceptions.)
It’s pretty easy to see how this works. Imagine a cannon on the top of a very tall mountain, pointed exactly horizontally, and let’s further imagine that there’s no air to get in the way. With a very light charge in the cannon, the cannonball might roll to the end of the barrel and then plummet straight down, at the usual rate you would expect based on the acceleration due to gravity. As you increase the amount of powder used to fire the cannon, the cannonball leaves with faster and faster speeds, and moves out horizontally at the same time it is dropping vertically. If you think about it, and IF the Earth really is curving downwards below the path of the cannonball, then eventually you should be able to get that cannonball up to a speed where its “drop” is exactly matched by the Earth curving away below it – and the cannonball would then continue to “fall” around the Earth forever.
Note that this means that putting something into orbit, at the velocities we see in the case of spacecraft and satellites, and maintaining a near-constant altitude, pretty much REQUIRES that the body around which you are orbiting be round!
bobm73 Good explanation. It remind me of a great YouTube channel about science popularization (dunno if it’s how you say it in English), but it’s in French.
The first videos were about the basis of gravity, heliocentrism, orbit, and ISS. I would have gladly show it to Austruth, but like i said, i don’t know if anyone here understand french. I’m sure there’s channels as good as this one in English, but i don’t know some.
Anyway, I’ll leave it here. https://www.youtube.com/user/epenser1
soaringeagle Austruth
rhooManu bobm73 soaringeagle Austruth Thanks. I wish my French was good enough to make it through that video, but it’s far too poor for that. And yes, “science popularization” would be the right phrase in English.
My exposure to French comes from a number of years back when I was working for a company which had a rather large operation in Grenoble (which is an absolutely gorgeous place) and which I visited a couple of times a year. Unfortunately, I seem to pick up accents MUCH better than I pick up the languages themselves, so when I DID use my very limited French vocabulary, it apparently comes out as if I were a native speaker. I used to get a LOT of puzzled looks when I would say “Je ne parle pas Francais” – you could see the thoughts going through their minds, “but you just DID speak French…” 🙂
To tie this this rambling back to the topic at hand – all of those trips I used to make on business were clearly impossible, since we now have been told that the Earth is flat. After all, who would fly such absurd routes just to get from one point to another on a flat disc? We all know how much the airlines LOVE wasting fuel, right? So clearly anyone flying a “Great Circle” route must be doing it as part of the massive Round Earth conspiracy! Tricky SOBs…;-)
bobm73 soaringeagle Austruth My apologies, figured the thread would more or less point out the specificity of my replies. Which is seemingly does not, but again I want to stress, I am not a flat-earther. I am also not saying gravity doesn’t exist, simply that it is not entirely understood, so to comment on its nature as fact with our current knowledge, is a false statement. It could drastically change tomorrow.
Now tell me boys if this is a real image of Australia from your ISS , what major city’s do you think are in the north west to Central Australia? I’ll give you a hint , it’s less than 1.
Austruth those arent cities
Ha ha lightning!!! Try just bullshit CGI
Austruth look at it closely, it is clearly lightening, if it was cgi don’t you think it would look better then kt does, it was a very long exposure, you can clearly tell the diference between steady permanent light sources, and those that were temporary flashes
yes clearly it’s is!! I forgot who I was talking to .
There’s definitely BS involved here, but not from CGI. First of all, whatever made you think this was supposed to have been taken from the ISS, when it so very clearly wasn’t? What IS the source of this photo?
That was a screen shot from a NASA film showing the world at night . As I know Australia I took a screen shot and there are no towns anywhere near the north west to central Australia
Austruth What, so now it’s NOT from the ISS? Make up your mind! So what “NASA film” IS this supposedly from? What did the film say those lights were? Why is that big red cross and line down at the lower right? Why are the lights you’re so worried about different colors than the lights of the major cities? Hey, maybe they’re secret alien bases in the middle of nowhere! Why is the entire continent visible with no cloud cover? How do we know you didn’t just make this whole thing up?
Austruth Funny how no one yet thought to simply check on the web for an answer to this. Asking Google for info on “lights from space in western Australia” immediately resulted in the following:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/aus-fires.html#.VnXmWRorKis
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/black_marble_images_showed_lights_uninhabited_western_australia_what_gives-98460
Seems to be a reasonable explanation, given that the image presented is a composite (and NOT from the ISS at all, just as I suspected).
http://youtu.be/Ip2ZGND1I9Q watch this Einstein!!! CLEARLY this is lightning and CLEARLY a different colour . So stop trying to bullshit every question like you know . You know zero . And I know some of those city light are fake so they are bullshitting us .
Nice video. Now, THAT’S actual footage from the ISS. Beautiful.
Nice video, yes…but NONE of the cloud cover moves! Moves with the “rotation” but the clouds themselves don’t change as would be very evident from that distance considering the time it would take for the rotation to go past the cameras view. Is it just me or does that come off as odd to anyone else?
Why would you expect the clouds to move? Consider the scales involved: the field of view covers hundreds of miles, and what you’re calling “rotation” is the motion of the ISS in orbit – and a COMPLETE orbit takes only about 90 minutes. So any given cloud system would only be in view for a few minutes of real time. So unless you’re expecting clouds to be moving at many hundreds of miles per hour, no, there should be very, very little movement visible here.
Well I would expect the clouds to move because that’s what clouds do. I understand what you are saying regarding the time the ISS would spend over the clouds it is viewing but to see NO movement is crazy to me. Looking at the clouds as they first come into view at the horizon to when they are past the camera should reveal at least a little movement or some sort of change in appearance. I don’t believe I should see a gap in the clouds that remains the same and doesn’t appear to move or shift in even the slightest bit…but for a second we can ignore this to get to a better example. At 2:40 you notice just left of center will come a coastline where you can make out the waves and can clearly see the whitecaps coming into the coastline…funny these don’t move either and I’m sure we would see some sort of motion there…right? You see the waves stay the same from the moment they come into view all the way till they are out of view…Waves (unlike clouds) change form, shape, size and speed at the snap of a finger so it should be very evident that these waves are moving in some fashion. Yet, they appear as still as a picture..or do they not move fast enough either to be detected by the ISS?
On a side note (no matter if fake or real and has nothing to do with anything here) check out 2:50, just lower left of center it appears as if the moons reflection is bouncing off the ocean…pretty cool!
That it s “crazy to you” is just because you’re not used to viewing or thinking of things at this scale of size or speed. Clouds move, of course, but not fast enough to cross continental distances in a few minutes. It’s like the people who expect to see the Earth rotating in these videos, without stopping to think that it takes the better part of an hour to show significant movement – and in the meantime, the spacecraft is NOT just sitting still itself.
And this unfamiliarity with scale got you again – those are NOT waves, but just more clouds. Waves on the ocean are too small and too close together to be resolved at this scale. And even if you could see them – again, how fast do you think waves move, and how much distance (within this image) would that speed cover in a few seconds?
You HAVE to be willing to do the math; otherwise, you will know nothing.
flem34 the iss is moving at 14,000 mph the clouds 5-30 on average, you would need a micrometer and to examine it pixel by oixel to notice cloud movement
bobm73 Nice curve to the earth, but I guess Austruth didn’t notice that.
Austruth and the lights in the other picture were clearly lightening and clearly a diferent color
Austruth also this is a time lapse, the other is 1 long slow exposure
ofcourse they will look diferent just do a lil reading on photography basics to see why
hint a city would be a bright spot
widespread lightening a wide less bright area if light
you can clearly tell the video was taken at an aperature setting that alowed in alot more light, and probably a much higher iso for a faster shutter speed at that light
but knowing the cameras on the iss the 1st photo does not look like it was from the iss unless it was before they rigged up the motion compensating arm for the camera
The first picture can’t be from the ISS, for the simple reason that it’s not high enough to capture all of Australia in a single shot.
That is a screen shot which I edited and made bigger so Australia was in the one shot .
Unless your “editing” involved combining multiple images into a single image of the entire continent, there’s still no way this is from the ISS.
You are a complete retard . I just proved to you what lightning looks like and you make up another BS excuse . Do not reply to anything I comment about again .
Austruth Yeah, the same problem again : you suppose that NASA have a huge complex with false space in it, real-size spaceships that don’t fly, with some futuristic no-gravity systems to look like they’re in space, and some fantastic CGI that needs millions dollars to be made, and so they’re able to mount and maintain the biggest lie of all times, BUT they’re so dumb they can’t some cities.
Let’s say nasa spends 2 billion on rockets and fake Cgi images . Some are real they are just not done from a vehicle that is 250 miles up , But they receive 8 billion in taxes from the sheep. Now that’s good business isn’t it ?
Austruth Nope, let’s just stop that “let’s say” thing of you. Let’s search, find, and use some sources. This is exactly why you don’t understand basics of physics. Because you just go “let’s say this is it”, and don’t search for anything, don’t verify anything.
2billion ? 8 billion ? Show me where you did find this number.
I made them up . How the fuck would I know what they spend . It was an example . It might be 4 billion spend to 10 billion allocation .
Austruth By searching. I know, you’re not used to this. This might be a complete new world for you.
Austruth “I made them up . How the fuck would I know what they spend”
There are these wonderful new inventions called “the internet” and “search engines” – you really should give them a try.
Again, it took all of ten seconds for Google to tell me, after being given “2015 NASA budget,” that the agency received $18.4 billion in funding for the 2015 fiscal year, which amounted to a whopping ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT of the total U.S. Federal budget. So again, that would be a remarkably idiotic way to try to hide funding. Especially given that so much of that total NASA budget is easily traceable.
Your be missed the point . They spend less then they receive by not doing what they say . They spend 50 million a year on a live feed which cuts out all the time . Money well spent?
Austruth No, I get the point, and got it long, long ago. The problem is that the point is utter and complete nonsense. You CLAIM that NASA is “not doing what they say,” but have exactly zero evidence that this is the case. To be sure, NASA IS a government agency and therefore isn’t going to be the most efficient organization around, but to think that they’re diverting significant amounts of their budget to some secret/nefarious cause by “faking” an entire space problem is simply absurd. It flies in the face of a very, very large pile of contrary evidence, not to mention plain common sense.
As to your “$50 million a year” live feed, where did you come up with THAT number? Just another figure pulled out of the air? (I can guarantee you that the incremental cost of the feed itself is nowhere near that high.) And it “cuts out all the time”? Well, gee, poor baby; YOU try maintaining a round-the-clock high definition television feed from an orbiting platform in space, and see how well you do. Keep in mind that this TV feed is going to be FAR from the top priority user of what is always going to be a limited downlink capacity.
bobm73 Austruth You have no evidence to prove otherwise, and DO NOT post a fucking link about someone or something tracing. Are you so gullible to think that wouldn’t take 5 minutes to adjust? We KNOW the government alters data all the fucking time. Everyday…In so many different aspects.
gharrison I own a blue unicorn, and you have no evidence to prove otherwise.
gharrison bobm73 Austruth radar antenaes dont adjust data
Austruth they do not spend less then they get, they do do what they say
you know the investors review what they do right they would not be given the money if they didnt do what they say
the iss feed does not cut out…it just gets dark out
its called nighttime
Austruth What about the Russian are they lying too?
bobm73 Austruth All of which are subjective.
That “explanation” would make slightly more sense if the vehicle in question wasn’t clearly visible, able to be photographed from Earth’s surface, and rather easily shown to be exactly at the altitude it’s supposed to be, the size it’s supposed to be, and moving at the speed it’s supposed to be.
And why go through such an elaborate and yet (according to you) easily-seen-through hoax just to hide a paltry 6 billion? The Defense Department budget alone could hide far more than that, with no need for this enormously unlikely deception. And how do you explain the accounts of the over 200 people, from 15 nations, and including over a half-dozen private citizens, who have actually been there? Or the numerous amateur radio operators who have communicated with on-Station personnel? Etc., etc., etc..
It is pretty clear that yes, kids, there really IS a space station up there.
rhooManu Austruth you have been inside and seen them with your own eyes right? If not stop acting like you know wtf your talking about. Period, again im not a flat earther, but some of this is absolutely suspect. The fact that NASA openly admits (within description) that their photos are composite. Additionally, yes NASA has a plane that simulates zero gravity, and exercise zero gravity environments submerged in water. Your responses would hold merit, if you have ever actually seen any of this with your own two eyes, which you haven’t. So everything you type is subjective, as with the other side of the argument. Go to space, take a picture, and bring it back, if you cant do that, you people are simply debating theory, but do so in a more civilized manner, because at the end of the day, you are simply repeating what others have posted in regards to whatever data (which can be easily, easily manipulated.) you dig up.
gharrison “You can’t prove otherwise”, blablablah.
rhooManu gharrison lol whats the difference in what your saying?
gharrison rhooManu Austruth ofclurse we have seen it with our own eyes its easy as hell to see
do you know what composite images even mean?
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/real-photos-of-round-earth-vs-composite-images-or-cgi/
that explains it
speaking of compound images
everything your eye sees is a compound image
they just love to confuse you with that term
soaringeagle gharrison rhooManu Austruth So you have been to space then? And again i am not a flat-earther…..but…I have serious doubts as to any of us ever seeing Earth with our own eyes.
soaringeagle gharrison rhooManu Austruth I do however claim that ALL of our knowledge is ever-changing and subject to time and place. Science adjusts constantly. I have my doubts about either side of the coin on this one. Simply because, on either end, flaws can be seen.
What I have seen with my own eyes is ships not going over the horizon . This is something I thought did happen until I saw something in a video . Then I went out and tested it myself . The ships disappeared , I grabbed a telescope and could see the bottom of a boat from 10-15 miles easily . These guys will then throw in refraction and how high was I and how do you know , how far , CRAP!! . But I know what I have seen with my own eyes so I know in my own heart we do not live on what nasa tells us we do .
Austruth How many times have you watched a ship near the horizon? Once or twice? And you can use that once or twice to ‘prove’ that everyone who has watched a ship sail over the horizon was simply wrong or lying?
I have just come back from a vacation in Tenerife. I can quite categorically say that the further up mount Teide we went, we were able to see further and the horizon fell the higher we got. Whole islands that could not be seen from the beach came into view when we travelled further away from them and to a higher altitude. The horizon which at beach level was above my wife’s head (as I am over 12 inches taller than her) was below her head at 3000m above sea level. In fact at 70 metres above sea level, on our hotel balcony there was a very noticeable drop in the level of the horizon. If the horizon is always at my eye level, then as long as my wife and I are stood on level ground, the horizon would be above her head. It isn’t.
5 months ago I didn’t know the curvature just like everyone else . Now I do!! I see these boats everyday thanks for asking . Now I just need to show everyone else what they see but do not understand . Don’t tell me about the horizon . That is another thing I can test on my own . You don’t use another person to test the eye level horizon you have to use your Own eye . I’m starting to think You 3 are paid shills just at the ready to answer questions which then you speak crap and confuse anyone else on the blog .
Austruth i believe you are the paid shill since you are lying left and right
all your claims are made up
not 1 based on reality
Austruth You need a reference to know whether you are ACTUALLY looking level with your eyesight. Rather than carry a stick around which is the same height as my eye level and getting someone to hold it upright, I find it much easier to judge the angle of the horizon based on my wife’s height.
You need something as a reference. Anything will do. To say that you can look ahead and tell whether you are looking at eye level is simply ignorant of the fact that there is no way you can judge this accurately. Therefore if you claim that the horizon is at eye level without using a reference is simply misleading.
Austruth
“I’m starting to think You 3 are paid shills”
Let me make sure I have this right – you believe that there is someone or something out there that PAYS people to try to convince people who are too ignorant to perform basic geometry on their own that the Earth isn’t flat?
I’m sure glad I put my drink down before I read that; I hate it when Coke gets sprayed out through my nose when I’m laughing that hard.
Austruth now you are resorting to lies
when a ship goes over the horizon the most powerful telescope on earth will not see it again
its over the horizon
the only way to see it again is raise your elevation
ok
if your lies are real
use your telescope and look across the ocean and see the continent on the other side…oh wait something 4000 miles wide can’t be seen? i wonder why
once a ship is over the horizon a telescope cannot see it again.. that is a fact
Well go get a telescope and test for yourself . If you had you would see what I do but you don’t or you are lying . I have showed you the boats over the horizon video and that is what I see …. Hang on!! didn’t I tell you to not comment to me again…so don’t . You speak to much know all know nothing shit!!
Austruth i have a telescope
i also grew up racing sailboats, and cruising the oceans, i know what you can and cant see
i also have a super zoom camera, and if i get enough cash this week i will be getting a new 1 that is so powerful it can photograph the moons of jupiter
dude, i grew up at sea…
that video is a fraud
once a ships over the horizon. its oiut of view of even the most powerful telescopes
now you still hav e not explained why your view is limited to the assumed 15 miles? wich is probably less then 5 but why only 15, why can you not see a massive continent 1000 miles away with your telescope?
why couldnt columbus look out over the water and say, see theres land, i told you it was there..instead of having to go on faith alone and sail off towards the “edge of the earth” not knowing what he would find
if a telescope can see farther around a curve you would see the other continents
since you dont..you have no idea what the hell you are talking about
gharrison rhooManu Austruth “Your responses would hold merit, if you have ever actually seen any of this with your own two eyes, which you haven’t. So everything you type is subjective, as with the other side of the argument.”
Excuse me, but how can you possibly know what anyone else here has or has not “seen…with [their] own two eyes?” Or more generally know what they have or have not personally experienced? I would doubt – but cannot say with certainly – that anyone in this discussion has actually been in space, but there is much, much more to this discussion than photographs taken by astronauts or videos of life aboard the ISS. But even those types of evidence cannot be readily dismissed simply because they were not personally experienced by those in this discussion. In many, many cases the most reasonable conclusion, by far, is that these items are exactly what they purport to be.
And there is actually quite a bit of OTHER evidence which has been presented here which is not in the least little bit subjective. There is also a good deal of evidence/argument derived from some rather solid theoretical/mathematical grounds. Taken as a whole, and given the complete lack of substantial evidence or reasoning presented in support of the “flat Earth” model, it is reasonable to conclude that the flat Earth model is incorrect.
gharrison rhooManu Austruth Looks like I missed all the fun while I was asleep.
NASA admits to using composite images? Of course. All electronic images are composites, including the ones taken by your smartphone. This is just one of those statements non-believers use to confuse people.
‘Gravity is just a theory’ another statement used to confuse people.
It is, as has been stated here many times, NOT just a theory.
We didn’t know anything about photosynthesis until recently, yet plants have been using it for millions of years, it still existed. Gravity is 100% real, it is a fact, it is not in any way deniable as the flat earther’s would have you believe.
Gravity is used in physics all the time. Einsteins theory of relativity is used a hell of a lot too.
My Father-in-law spent the last 20 years of his life growing crystals for satellites using Einstein’s theory of relativity to keep the time-keeping of the satellites in ‘sync’ with the passage of time on Earth.
Without Einstein’s theory of relativity GPS would simply not work.
Thats not iss feed. Real iss feed looks like clouds forever
Austruth Nice curve to the earth there.
bobm73 Austruth they like to claim the iss is a hologram, or, the idiot that runs the whole flat earth bs says that the iss, and all satellitesz are cartoon drwings taped to the bottom of solar powered high altitude drones
yea..these guys are so convincing with their logic huh…
it absolutely fascinates me how many people can be conned into believing this nonsense
soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth
“they like to claim the iss is a hologram”
Y’know, it’s funny what people will claim when they don’t know a single thing about a given subject, in this case holography. Here’s a hint, kids: real life is not like Star Trek, and there aren’t any such things as holodecks, and holograms are NOT full-color, life-sized, solid-looking images of neurotic doctors.
I happen to be in the display business; for whatever it’s worth, I DO know at least a little bit about this stuff.
bobm73 soaringeagle Austruth have you not seen the hololens yet?
ofcourse to see the full color solid looking holograms you have to be wearing a hololens and the view angles not all that wide
i suppose the “dome” could be like the lenses the hololense holograms happen in between… but that would mean microsoft is god, created the earth and built the dome
something about that doesn’t seem right..
a microsoft product running for thousands or millions or billions of years without a crash a reboot or blue screen of death?
now i realllly want a hololens someday.. but still its not enough to convince me that microsoft is some sorta deity
soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth And let’s just note that the “hololens,” despite what the marketing-written copy says, does NOT in any way produce a true holographic image. It’s a stereoscopic display, meaning that it provides a “3-D” appearance through separate left- and right-eye 2-D images.
bobm73 soaringeagle Austruth How do you know, anything that you just typed is true? The internet? Please…you have no IDEA what tools are at the governments disposal. Historically, by the time the common man has access to it, it is obsolete.
gharrison I’ll use your own words again: “you can’t prove otherwise”.
Austruth How can you refer to the ISS if you think the Earth is flat? The ISS is in orbit over a Spherical Earth. If you believe the ISS is 1000 miles away and can still see it, then all the laws of perspective that the FE’ers rely on to explain why you can’t see things further than about 30 miles away, unless it’s the size of the sun, break down. Thus, if you can see the ISS from 1000 miles away, the Earth is a ball.
Austruth “Please stop replying,” Good heavens. Why don’t you start thinking.
I’ve seen your you tube ch too . Maybe you should cut your dreads and get off the whacky weed . It’s blurring your vision and making things curved
Austruth i dont smoke idiot
but hey im a hell of alot smarter an d saner then you even if i did
trying to make someone look dumb when you think the earths flat is funny
Austruth “I underestimated with the 25 miles . It could of been 30-35 . How fast does a 200 meters ship travel in 1-1/2 hours .”
You tell me; you’re the one claiming to be an expert in the behavior of such ships. And why would you assume the ship is headed directly away from you?
“I don’t give a fuck what you fiddling figures are about how high I was . It might have been 12 ft . That does not make me see a whole ship from that distance.”
It doesn’t? How do you know? Have you run the numbers, to find out for yourself? Why not?
And since you don’t seem to want to consider examples that aren’t located in your hemiSPHERE, let’s try this one.
Lord Howe Island is located a bit less than 400 miles off the east coast of Australia, roughly at the same latitude as Port Macquarie. The highest point on that island is Mount Gowan, a bit more than a half mile above sea level. From 400 miles away, from sea level to the top of the mountain would be about 0.8 degrees, visually; for comparison, the full Moon is just over half a degree.
So – can you see Lord Howe Island from the coast of Australia? Why not?
“The highest point on that island is Mount Gowan…”
Sorry, my fingers got ahead of me; that’s Mt. Gower, not Gowan.
I have an island off the coast of where I am that is 21 miles away . Today I can see it clearly , ona bad day not at all . Does that answer your question . Dust , waves ocean spray etc.
Austruth “I have an island off the coast of where I am that is 21 miles away . Today I can see it clearly , ona bad day not at all . Does that answer your question.”
No, of course not. I asked specifically about Lord Howe Island, not some little rock a few miles out. Over short distances, such things as slight changes in the height-above-sea-level of the observer, etc., are going to have a major effect. So we should be considering larger objects from farther away, which – if the “flat Earth” model was correct – should be just as visible. If they’re not, then that model is in serious trouble. And such things as “dust and ocean spray” should be MUCH less of a factor for objects a half-mile tall, right?
And if you would just tell us specifically what island you’re talking about that’s “21 miles away,” then we could all figure out just what should and should not be visible.
Rattlesnake island North of Townsville . I am at the port . It is 350 ft high .
I do my homework don’t you worry about that
Austruth
Austruth Glad you’re still here! Because you never answered me :
— If the earth is flat, where is the border of the earth ?
— What is the sun and how does it fly in the sky ?
— If the earth is flat, why the moon isn’t ?
— If the earth is flat and there no such thing as gravity… On what stand the earth ?
— How do you explan the fact that it takes a smaller amount of time to travel from South africa to South america if the earth is flat and those two continents should be totally at opposite points ?
I really don’t understand how the world works. I’m very confused.
I will discuss thing a can see and understand . And what I see with the ships and islands near me doesn’t make sense on a globe that is 3963 miles radius
Austruth You’re right about this : you souldn’t discuss about things you don’t understand. Like earth, gravity… 😉
rhooManu Austruth 1.2k Views • Upvoted by https://www.quora.com/profile/Jay-Wacker, physicist, phd+postdoc+facultyhttps://www.quora.com/profile/Leo-C-Stein has https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-law-or-a-theory# in https://www.quora.com/topic/Physics.Gravity is a phenomenon. https://www.quora.com/topic/General-Relativity is a theory of gravity. The word “law” does not have a very precise definition in physics: the sense of the word is different in “Newton’s laws”, “Kepler’s laws”, “Gauss’s law”, and a “conservation law”. People often refer to the Newtonian theory of gravity as “Newton’s law of gravity”, but theory is a better term.
Austruth ofcourse it does if you cant see the ship or a land mass 10000 miles Away its a curve
The ship is a dot on the ocean 25 miles away . How the fuck are you supposed to see it 200, 1000 or 10000 miles away . I now see you are not to bright and this may not be the forum for you with statements like that .
Austruth “The ship is a dot on the ocean 25 miles away”
Forget the ship; I don’t want you straining your eyes to make out that little dot. Let’s talk about the example I gave earlier, of Lord Howe Island. From Port Macquarie, IF the Earth were flat, you should be able to see that island, from the shoreline to the top of the mountain, as somewhat bigger than the visible diameter of the full Moon. I trust don’t have any problems seeing something THAT size, do you?
So please, get to Port Macquarie, and tell us all what Lord Howe Island looks like from there. Or if that’s too far for you, call someone there and ask them if they can see the island. Then, after they’re finished laughing at you, you can report back here and tell us all about it.
Austruth I feel sorry for you. I know why you believe in the flat earth and can’t be reasoned with. I know people who are just like you. You have a condition where your life is lacking something so you are attracted to conspiracy theory. It fills a void thinking you know some inside secret knowledge that other people who you think of as “average lemmings” don’t know about. It makes you feel superior….. except you bought into a lie. The You Tubers and Flat Earth society folks make money off of poor saps such as yourself. You argue and argue and won’t listen to reason because you bought into an idea and hold on to it by faith and can’t admit it. You cling to anything remotely scientific sounding that supports it and throw out all evidence to the contrary. You do this not because a need to find the truth but out of a need to believe in something contrary to the rest of humanity. You are a contrarian you must be opposite because to you, the masses are wrong. The world is full of stupid people in your opinion and you must live apart from them and show them up any time you can on internet forums. Does it make you feel good about yourself? It shouldn’t because your precious flat earth is a fraud. You are either a dupe or a self-aware liar. Either way, you are pathetic and you are unfortanatly not alone. I know lots of conspiracy addicts. You crave contradiction. You don’t feel whole unless you chase after some idea that is opposite the masses of whom you despise. Why do you hate humanity? Is it some belief that the devil rules them? Maybe you are delusional. Maybe the devil is ruling your mind. Didn’t think of that possibility did you?
At least I can spell conspiracy
ConspiracyBuster Austruth But…who is to say you are not doing the same thing? Simply because more people accept something means it is in fact true? Lacking in philosophy a bit aren’t we, somewhat paradoxical.
gharrison ConspiracyBuster Austruth
Re:
“But…who is to say you are not doing the same thing? Simply because more people accept something means it is in fact true? Lacking in philosophy a bit aren’t we, somewhat paradoxical.”
First, Mr. Harrison, it would be much better if you would include a bit of context (as I have done here) so that we could at least tell who you were talking to, who you mean in the “you are not doing the same thing,” etc. in the above. With that addressed, though, you’ve made so many comments here recently that I hardly know where to begin. But let’s start with the above. I’ll have to make some assumptions, though, since I don’t know to whom the above was addressed or quite what it is you’re talking about.
The “because more people accept something means it is in fact true” I will assume refers to the notion that the Earth is spherical. If this is so – then no, no one here is assuming that this is correct simply based on the number of people who believe it. That the Earth is round can be actually demonstrated and observed in numerous way, most of which have been covered here and many of which I (and others) have performed personally. Since they HAVE been covered here (many times), I won’t detail them again unless you require specifics. But please review the prior comments before you do.
Next, you’ve been posting a lot on the difference between a “theory” and a “fact,” but in a very confusing manner. Gravity itself is NOT a “theory” – the fundamental force that we call “gravity” is directly observable and its existence is indisputable. The “theories” are those equations, etc., which attempt to describe or model the way gravity behaves (e.g., Einstein’s, Newton’s). And to date, those theories have done quite a good job at this, certainly to a far greater degree of accuracy than is required in this discussion re whether the Earth is flat or round. Gravity DOES exists, and each and every time it has been checked it has been directly dependent on the masses involved and inversely dependent on the distance between those masses. Unless someone can show that this statement is somehow incorrect, the “flat Earth” model simply CANNOT be correct, and that’s all there is to it. Do you disagree with this?
More to come…
Austruth Well, actually, as I just showed – it DOES make sense. It makes perfect sense. You just haven’t bothered to look into it well enough. Sorry about that.
rhooManu Austruth You can answer those questions as well as he can, using entirely different methods, which let me remind you, in 100 years will likely be totally obsolete. Keep that in mind.
Austruth Well, there you have it. Let’s say you’re observing from your usually-claimed 12 feet above see level; your visual horizon will be at about 4.7 miles. But for anything above 200 feet above sea level on that island, the horizon is 19 miles away – and as 19 + 4.7 is just about 24 miles, you could easily see the island from your location. In fact, if the distance is exactly 21 miles to the island, and your elevation accounts for 4.7 miles of that distance, then you would be able to clearly see anything taller than about 145 feet on that island. So it’s not at all surprising that you can see it.
These calculations, of course, completely ignore possible refraction affects, which could make even more of the island visible at times.
So no, apparently you do NOT do your homework, or you wouldn’t have thought this at all unusual in the first place.
By the way, a simplified version of the calculations involved is presented here:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/distance.htm
Austruth actually the 1 day you saw t was a day theres a temperature inversion
Austruth Gads you really need to take geometry.
bobm73 Austruth Yeah I am sure they will, I bet the Russians have lied sense 1957.
Austruth
Oh, one more little thing. Since you are in Australia, why don’t you call up Qantas, and ask them how long it would take them to fly you from, say, Sydney to Santiago, Chile, and what type of aircraft they use on that route. Then please explain how a flight of that duration could possibly connect those two points if the Earth is, in fact, flat. Show it on a map, if you like.
Best of luck with that, by the way.
slymonster Blunite01 It can be explained by simple physics. Density. Things more dense than air fall. Less dense than air they rise The same goes for water. Water obviously having a different density than air/cm3. There isn’t a mystical force called gravity sucking the whole mass of the earth to itself. As you admitted in your comment you “have a theory as to what CAUSES it” and that is what gravity is. A theory.
Marked2
Seriously? You still need gravity for your density explanation to work.
Gravity is not ‘just’ a theory. And saying that gravity is only ‘a theory’ shows that you have no idea what the scientific definition of a theory is.
Gravity has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
slymonster Marked2 This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.
The Special/General Theory of Relativity is not known to ever break down (as of yet). Newton’s Law of Gravity, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, Faraday’s Law, etc are all known to known not be universally correct — they work in a wide variety of circumstances and and we know the theories that supersede them (General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc), but they are not universally true.
gharrison slymonster Marked2 “The Special/General Theory of Relativity is not known to ever break down (as of yet). Newton’s Law of Gravity, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion, Faraday’s Law, etc are all known to known not be universally correct — they work in a wide variety of circumstances and and we know the theories that supersede them (General Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, etc), but they are not universally true.”
Obviously – but even Newton’s and Kepler’s laws are more than sufficiently accurate within the context of this discussion so as to be applicable. We’re not discussing anything on a scale remotely requiring te application of relativity or quantum mechanics. And while those laws DID “supersede” (sic) Newton, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity are hardly obsolete or abandoned – in the vast majority of cases, as is the case here, they work with sufficient accuracy so as to be practical for use. We are not going to predict one sort of planetary motion, etc., using Newtonian mechanics, and something wildly different when applying Einstein. On the scale where the differences we’re talking about here will show up, Einstein’s corrections to Newton are extremely subtle and thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
bobm73 gharrison slymonster Marked2 I am interested in discussing this with you in more depth without the confusion of misplaced replies. Do you have an email? Some of the comments on here are absurd in regards to certain areas of physics, and I am genuinely interested in this “flat earth” theory. gharrison@wvjc.edu
gharrison bobm73 slymonster Marked2 there is no flat earth theory
its a paranoid delusion by conspiracy addicts, how dare you question gravity saying its just a theory
then call this flat earth stupidity a theory
do you understand the meanjning of the word theory?
the flat earth was proven wrong millions of times over the past 3000 years, there is zero evidence its flat, it defies all the laws of physics..its simply impossible and anyone with eyes can clearly see it is a fraud
so how dare you question the most inteligent people to ever live but give credit to the stupidest most insane
flat earth is not theory..its a delusion
bobm73 gharrison I am interested in discussing this with you in more depth without the confusion of misplaced replies. Do you have an email? Some of the comments on here are absurd in regards to certain areas of physics, and I am genuinely interested in this “flat earth” theory. gharrison@wvjc.edu
slymonster Marked2 https://www.quora.com/profile/Leo-C-Stein, Ph.D. from MIT, B.S. from Caltech. Specializing in gravity.1.2k Views • Upvoted by https://www.quora.com/profile/Jay-Wacker, physicist, phd+postdoc+facultyhttps://www.quora.com/profile/Leo-C-Stein has https://www.quora.com/Is-gravity-a-law-or-a-theory# in https://www.quora.com/topic/Physics.Gravity is a phenomenon. https://www.quora.com/topic/General-Relativity is a theory of gravity. The word “law” does not have a very precise definition in physics: the sense of the word is different in “Newton’s laws”, “Kepler’s laws”, “Gauss’s law”, and a “conservation law”. People often refer to the Newtonian theory of gravity as “Newton’s law of gravity”, but theory is a better term.
slymonster Marked2 Before you continue to insult people for their lack of knowledge in regards to gravity, maybe you should actually look into more than one textbook. It is, a theory.
“It can be explained by simple physics. Density. Things more dense than air fall. Less dense than air they rise”
Sly already beat me to this, but I just have to ask – if there is no gravity, then what directions to you mean by “rise” and “fall”? And WHY?
“The same goes for water. Water obviously having a different density than air/cm3. There isn’t a mystical force called gravity sucking the whole mass of the earth to itself. As you admitted in your comment you “have a theory as to what CAUSES it” and that is what gravity is. A theory.”
No, it’s not. Gravity is an easily observable force; that it exists is an indisputable fact. If you think otherwise, then please explain the results of the experiment conducted by Henry Cavendish in 1797-98. The “theories” of gravitation, such as Newton’s and Einstein’s, are attempts to describe the action of that observed force, mathematically. (And they do a very good job of it, too.) But there is absolutely no question that gravity exists.
By the way, where did you learn your “simple physics?” Because you really should ask them for a refund of your tuition.
bobm73 “They did a very good job” is not only not entirely true, but subjective at best, considering our understanding of physics and gravity is pretty much isolated to one body in a sea of trillions of bodies. Physics and gravity do NOT apply the same everywhere.
gharrison bobm73 i’m sorry but i have to say this is a dumb statement, how were many black dwarfs, moons of outer planets, black holes and super massive black holes discovered?
hint, they can’t be seen, but the affects of gravity are 100% predictable on trillions of other bodies.. we circle the sun and the moon us because of gravity
you did not think this through at all did you
soaringeagle Ok. So we know everything about gravity, physics and the functionality they have everywhere in space. You’re absolutely right. Carry on.
gharrison soaringeagle we do not know everything but we do know enough to know te exact affects of gravity throughout the universe
we have for a very long time
“‘They did a very good job'” is not only not entirely true, but subjective at best, considering our understanding of physics and gravity is pretty much isolated to one body in a sea of trillions of bodies. Physics and gravity do NOT apply the same everywhere.
Sorry, but that’s just not so. Our direct experience of gravity may be limited at present to just this one planet and its moon, but we’ve also landed robotic craft on several other bodies, flown past a good number of others, and can observe the motions f many, many others outside this system. All appear to behave in accordance with gravity (and the other forces) as we understand them here. Further, we have no reason at all to assume that there’s anything particularly special about this little corner of the universe. So the best assumption we can make is that physics does, in fact, behave the same everywhere.
Is this “proven?” Of course not; nothing in science is considered “proven” EVER. But it’s the explanation that makes the most sense (by far), and so we use it until and unless contrary evidence comes to light. And of course all of the s completely irrelevant to the discussion here, since we are concert only with gravity as it behaves here on Earth.
https://youtu.be/R8U2hyoK8IU . Discuss this for me please guys
Austruth For a start, the narrator readily admits he doesn’t know how the gyroscopes work. He tries throwing doubt into the explanation of how they work by basically saying he doesn’t understand the explanation. What is there to discuss? The video is some fool saying he doesn’t know how a gyroscope works so has decided they can only work on a flat Earth? What sort of logic is that?
The only thing I see in this video is another example of bad science and even more foolish conclusions.
And for that matter, let’s face it: in reality, gyroscopes provide very strong proof that the Earth IS rotating as claimed, and is spherical. Specifically, gyroscopic directional indicators and gyrocompasses (which are related, but not the same thing) could not possibly work as they do unless the Earth was spherical and rotating. Case closed, indeed.
That’s good . Just wanted to see your one eyed view on this one too . By the way can you show me where in a text book it explains how autopilot and gyros work ? You know to keep nosing that plane down every minute .
Why should it have to “keep nosing that plane down every minute?” When flying, you maintain altitude via reference to the altimeter, which measures air pressure and so indicates a height above the surface, at least as long as the surface barometric pressure is constant. Autopilots, depending on their complexity, refer to this and other information, and make the same continuous slight corrections a human pilot does. Surely you don’t think that if you kept the controls absolutely fixed, the plane wouldn’t change heading, speed, attitude, or altitude, do you? If so, I’m guessing you’ve never, ever flown.
But if you really want a quick intro to how these systems work, Wikipedia has some fairly good articles:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscopic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrocompass
Especially re the last, hopefully you can see what I meant about these not working as they do EXCEPT on a round, spinning Earth.
No I didn’t think so . I have searched for a reference to this before and it should be written down somewhere ? Wouldn’t we feel the plane nosing down or even if the plane was at a continual curved flight ? We sure would . The moment a plane starts to descend we feel it
You “didn’t think so” about WHAT? Did you even read the articles I cited? Note in particular that a gyrocompass REQUIRES the the Earth be spinning in order to work!
And no, the plane doesn’t “nose up or down” – you can be losing altitude even when the nose is kept high, and climbing while apparently level. So no, you do not feel the effect of any object following the curvature of the Earth. (For one thing, “straight down” is always in the same direction as you see it – think about it.) And note again that “level flight” simply means that you are maintaining a constant altitude, which (if the ground below you stays at a constant elevation) would mean maintaining the same height above ground. And as the ground very gradually “curves away” you and the air around you go right along with it. There’s nothing to feel, and even if there were those effects would be swamped out by the hundreds of tiny corrections you’re making any minute.
Think of it this way – when you’re driving down a straight, flat road, do you keep the steering wheel perfectly still? Why not?
So if you fly over a mountain range the autopilot will start the plane going up ? Don’t think so !!!. It talks about the curve because they think the earth is curved . It would work on a flat earth better
“So if you fly over a mountain range the autopilot will start the plane going up ? Don’t think so !!!. It talks about the curve because they think the earth is curved . It would work on a flat earth better”
Actually, with some autopilots, you CAN set the thing to maintain height-above-ground, rather than maintaining the altitude as read from a standard altimeter (which is the “pressure” altitude, meaning that it is measured with respect to the barometric pressure at the surface and is read in terms of the altitude above “mean sea level”). Ever notice that an altimeter has an adjustment knob and a barometric pressure indicator? The pilot has to adjust the altimeter based on the barometric pressure, corrected to sea level, as measured at the nearest surface reporting station. (This is the “altimeter setting” given to the pilot as he or she is preparing to depart or land at a given airport.) And assuming that atmospheric pressure would work the same on a flat Earth as it does in reality, altimeters would work EXACTLY THE SAME.
Remind me again how much experience/training you have as a pilot?
Austruth Are you seriously arguing about how planes work with a trained pilot?
There are many trained pilots out there that don’t know what they are looking at . And there are trained pilots who are coming out and talking .
Austruth Yeah just like there are truck drivers who don’t know how to drive, are you one of those truck driver? I was flight instructor, I have BS. in aeronautics. Airplanes fly the way slymoster says they do. They don’t fly the way you think they do. He’s right and you are wrong, I would show you a scan of my flight instructor’s license, but it has my social security number on it, and you don’t believe photographic evidence.
You really need to stop insulting people.
Austruth So try this, you don’t know how to fly, and I doubt you have ever flown. But you say you drive trucks, you must have felt thrown back into your seat as you’ve accelerated. Why do you think that is?
You are talking a bit of shit Tom . Are you soaringeagle in disguise .
Austruth You clearly don’t want to learn anything at all. I have asked you about 10 questions and you have not answered one. You are not a truck driver, you a troll driver, you get some perverse pleasure out of seeing how many people you can shut up. But shutting people up doesn’t change facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#/media/File:Horizon,_Valencia_(Spain).JPG
Austruth Your entire claim rests on what you think you saw once. So using your rules here is what I saw once, and you must believe it the same way you insist that everyone else believe your claims.
Some time prior to 1976 ( I know because I was still in high school ) The Philadelphia Museum of Science had an exhibit on Galileo’s pendulum experiment (you have heard of Galileo down under, haven’t you?). The pendulum swung back and forth; under it was painted compass rose. When we first looked at it the pendulum was swinging from one point on the compass rose to another point 180 degrees in the opposite direction. After spending how ever long we spent there, about 4 hours, the pendulum had swung to a different angle relative to the room. Strangely the amount it moved corresponded to the amount and direction one would expect if the earth was curved and spinning. Odd how that could happen in a flat fixed surface.
I don’t expect you to be smart enough to understand Newton’s equations, but Galileo was much more of a observational/experimental scientist, you put a lot of stock in observation, and personal observation at that, so I am telling you this was in fact my personal observation, now, therefore you must believe it.
Austruth I edited the above because I remembered the name of the place is the Franklin Institute not Philadelphia Museum of Science I am doing this from memory, not Googling.
TomTrevor Austruth there is no musueam odf science in philly theres the franklin institute, the university of penn anthropology musueam, the art musueam the rodin museam the tiberino musueam (youd never heard of it but i used to live there) several others i can’t think of those were just the ones i went to several times
oh ofcourse the “please touch musueam” wich was more on the intelectual level of a flat earther is there an air and space musueam next to the franklin? or am i thinking dc, no, theres an old ww2 seaplane put front and you can go in the re-entry capsule, and the lander from 1 of the early moon missions
i used to go to the penn anthropology musueam most often
TomTrevor Austruth you from philly? damn dude, that just brought back thst memory, i saw the exact same exibit probably around the same timeframe but totally forgot about it till you mentioned it
i have not been to the franklin since i was a kid..practicly went by it daily but hadn’t gone inside since the late 70’s is that exibit still there if so i will gladly take a day and do a time lapse of it throughout the day proving we are on a spinning ball
Austruth The letter in that video loses all credibility as soon as it mentions Eric Dubay. We also have no way of knowing the letter is authentic or whether his qualifications are. It’s a Youtube video. That’s all it is.
Isn’t it time we gave up on this hopeless case? I know that is what he wants, but who care the Earth will continue to be curved no matter what idiots think.
If that letter was actually written by an airline pilot, I’m the lead ballerina for the Moscow Ballet.
Reminds me of an anti-relativity kook I know who claimed to have received a letter of support from “Stephen Hawkings” (sic).
Austruth Collention avoidance technology most certainly will, not all planes have it, but some do.
“The moment a plane starts to descend we feel it”
Not necessarily; you won’t feel it unless the downward acceleration is fast enough. If you were a blindfolded passenger in a plane I was flying, and if I had the time and space to do it in, I could take us from 10,000 feet all the way to landing, and you wouldn’t know anything was going on until you felt the wheels touch.
One of the things a student pilot has to go through as part of their training is some time “under the hood,” flying in simulated instrument conditions with no visibility to the outside world. You very quickly learn that you CANNOT trust what you think you are feeling to tell you anything useful about the plane’s attitude, whether it is climbing, descending, turning, etc..
By the way, at least as a student pilot is typically taught during their primary training, you do NOT “push the nose down” or “pull it up” to descend or climb. Contrary to what you might expect, the yoke is treated as an airspeed control (push to speed up, pull to slow down) and you view the THROTTLE as the altitude control. Neither that view or the reverse is completely correct, but it’s safer to teach it that way in initial training.
bobm73 Also the plane turns by banking and not by turning the nose. It is the horizontal component of lift that turns the plane while the vertical component overcomes gravity which just happens to exist.
bobm73 In fact there is something called a graveyard spiral. Which is the most likely the way that John Kennedy Jr crashed his plane. One’s inner ear fluid doesn’t catch up to the motion of the plane and one over compensates for turns and befor they know it they are in a dive with ever tighten turns.
If you ever want to rid yourself of the notion that your body knows what position it is in try to get a ride in a vertigo simulator. You will never again think you know which way is up.
When I was studying for my B.S. In aeronautics we spent a day at Andrews Air Force Base we were given Hypoxia training, rapid decompression training and, vertigo simulators, al were fascination, but vertigo simulation is unlike anything else I have ever experienced. While I did fine before the vertigo way really simulated once they kicked it in, I had no chance I crashed the simulator within about a minute, no one in our group did much better.
But Flat Earthers won’t believe that either.
TomTrevor bobm73 haha yes thed vertigo was exactly what i was just trying to explain.
when you can’t see the ground to verify your orientation, you start a turn, the fluids move and you feel it you react to it to straighten out, but overshoot
the back and forth makes you completely lose track of wich way is up (the literal translation of vertigo is ‘wich way is up”) once in a spiral dive speed increases quickly, you pull back on the stick thinking that your diving, not banked too steep, just a level dive, that increases the problem ..in no time you are wrestling it around trying to gain your equilibrium , and always making it worse and worse
either you come out of the clouds regain visual reference to the ground and regain control, or rip your wings right off trying
the biggest problem with that spiral dive is, you cant pull back, you have to level the wings, but theres no way of telling wich way to roll to get level
thats how you end up inverted in a flat spin stall
i’ve done just a lil basic aerobatics training but i could not imagine how the vertigo trainer would feel….i can only imagine its something like when i was a stupid kid and drank too much then lay down and the rooms spinning
that weird disconnection between what you see and feel
soaringeagle TomTrevor bobm73 I am not going to spend my time hunting down the correct post to reply to the Flat Earthers because they don’t wan to learn, but I came across this and it gives an idea of what a certain type of autopilot can do, interestingly it involves a Qantas Airbus 350. Since we were talking to the guy from down under about Qantas.
http://blog.aopa.org/leadingedge/?p=5791&WT.mc_id=&wtmcid;&WT.mc_sect=sap
TomTrevor soaringeagle bobm73 airliners today rely too heavily on computerized systems to keep them safe, wich ofcourse in theory is a great idea, but there was a famous case of an uncrashable plane that had so many crash avoidance systems the pilots forgot how to actually fly
in this case, the pilot in command was taking a nap, while the copilot monitored the flight
a rather strong gust shut off the autopilot wich caused the copilot to panic and pull back on the stick, causing a stall, the stall alarm woke up the pilot, who pulled back hard on the stick while the copilot did the right thing and pushed forwarfd trying to recover from the stall
unfortunately this uncrashable plae did not have the controlls linked, but instead gave the pilots controls priority over the copilots
so while the copilots trying to recover from the stall, the pilots making t worse
they were basicly falling out of the sky, from 35,000 to 2,000 at wich time the copilot asks ‘wait are you pulling back on the stick’ the copilot informed him he shouldnt be, but by that time they were too low go recover and smashed into the ground
1st rule of flying is you are responsible for every single thing involvded in the flight, not the computers or mechanics or air trafic control..you, the pilot
you have to know how to fly the damn thing and how to recover when systems fail
id wager most airline accidents are caused by the pilots not reacting correctly to some sort of malfunction
bobm73 i fly strictly vfr not ifr because i fly gliders there was a hilarious article in soaring magazine about trying to use a dog, and a duck or something like that in place of instrumentation in order to fly into the clouds i can’t remember it all, but the basics of it were that ducks and dogs and humans have slightly diferent ways of sensing motion, when the dog sensed a turn, it peed on the floor the pee ran to the nose of the glider causing a dive wich freaked out the duck long story short, he ended up inverted with piss in his hair in an inverted stall
you had to read the article to get it, but you are right, when you have no visual reference to the ground, you turn your head to look out the left and right windows a couple times and you suddenly lose all orientation. you can’t tell if your diving, climbing, looping, spinning, in a spiral dive, and you start correcting ..incorrectly for every motion you think you feel
you can fly in circles thinking your flying straight
now you fly jets i think right..they are not exactly fly by feel planes.. in a glider when you dive through sink and into a thermal you ave to feel that slight lift of 1 wing (the thermal tries lify]ting the inner wing pushing you away from the thermal and you need to turn into it in a steep bank)
so even through we only fly vfr you are much more sensitive to tiny changes in motion
your constantly checking the attitude and roll vissually ofcourse, but your always reacting to it by feel ..hand on stick its in constant motion even if that motions only a couple mm
you are always reacting to the tiniest barely perceptible changes in motion
i’m sure you remember your 1st small plane spin training
that weird feeling when you pull up into a cross control stall then the nose drops pointing straight down and slowly lazily spinning theres no real acceleration, like in a spiral dive, the spins so lazy theres no real heavy sense of motion, if you were blindfolded you would not know you were pointing straight down and spinning
but because you can see your best freinds house straight below going round and round and round your heart races and the excitements like a wild roller coaster ride
but the sense of motion is virtually non existent since your 1 wing is stalled the other flying you are moving rather slow even though you are pointing straight down…
i think that is pretty much the perfect example of how motion can fool you because you rely so much on visual verification of the changes in motion when you see motion but not feel it, or feel it and not see it its disorientating
case in point, they have those wrap around theater things at some theme parks that make you feel like you are flying through the mountains or whatever because the scene is moving all around you very quickly, all they have to do to complete the sense of motion is very small movements of the seat itself in the dips and dives and turns ..you can feel like your going a hundred miles an hour while in reality the seat your on only moves inches in any direction
the seat motion triggers the inner ear detection and the visual scene “verifies” what you think you feel so the 100 mph motion becomes very real
soaringeagle bobm73
“now you fly jets i think right..”
Not me! Maybe Tom, but back when I was still in the business of making airplane noises on a regular basis, all I ever flew was the sort that has that big Pilot Cooling Device stuck on the nose. (It must be a pilot cooling device – watch the pilot sweat if it stops! ;-)) Mostly Cessnas, 152s and 172s – couldn’t afford anything fancier as a regular ride at the time. (And I recently looked up what avgas costs these days – yikes!)
Both you and Tom will no doubt appreciate this story, though, and it does sort of tie in to our discussion of not trusting what your butt is telling you over what your instruments are telling you. (I actually did pretty well whenever I was “under the hood” – I guess being an engineer makes me more likely to trust needles and dials and such – but I digress…) Anyway, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that as a student pilot I managed to spin a 152 while flying all by my lonesome one nice summer day. Fortunately, my instructor had recently commented to me that “these Cessnas will pretty much fly themselves out of a spin” (turns out he was right, just didn’t think I’d be testing that quite so soon!), but there were a few seconds there when I was just SURE that I was pointed straight down and about to plant a little airplane into a field! (In reality, of course, I doubt that I was ever more than maybe 30 degrees nose down, probably not even that much, but at the time it DEFINITELY gets your attention.)
How I managed to spin the thing is a longer story, which I fortunately (for the sake of my pride) don’t have time to go into right now! 😉
bobm73 soaringeagle i got a fun story too
2nd solo flight, i was having fun, racing it at redline speed, then thermalling with 4 eagles, 1 folded its winds and went into a spiral dive ..spooked so i decided to try to chase it..in a 57 foot wingspan glider that rolls slow..anyway long story short , was a lil low on final, so made the low and slow mistake, a gust took mte over the parking lot, next to the runway, at only 30-50 feet off the ground, i had to bank it at 60 degrees, eyes fixed on the winfgtip as it was 2-4 feet from scraping the grass, i wresteled that beast back into position and pulled off a scary but perfect landing, everyone on the ground was absolutely convinced i was going to cartwheel it hitting the wing on the ground and cartwheeling down the runway tearing it, and everything and everyone in my path to shreds,,, but i did not even have a moment to get nervous ,, i knew i had it.. i knew the wijngtip was damn close to the ground but i was completely fixated on it and keeping at least a foot or 2 clearance
afterwards i realized how scary it was but felt damn proud to have pulled it off
i learned thbat lesson once and for all ..don’t try to fly slow to make it across the road, if you gotta land in the feild on the other side
though those eagles i was playing with are where i got my name when i was staying with a seneca medicine woman a few years later and told her that story
unfortunately have only had a dozen flights since then and no more solo flights but this spring ill be starting again, and this time..ridge soaring maybe even wave..really looking forward to thagt
bobm73 soaringeagle I have only done two intentional spins in my life, I had to give up flying because I got headaches and even now flying commercially I get headaches.
To get a flight instructor’s rating at least back in 1981 you had to do intentional spins, to know how to recover. For some reason my flight instructor seemed very scared of doing them, but I loved doing them, I wish I could have done more. The scary thing was losing altitude so quickly you couldn’t be really sure there weren’t airplanes below you and those planes aren’t likely looking for other planes basically falling out of the sky.
I have only flown Piper Cherokees, Cessna 152, and Cessna 172 and I have two hours in a Mooney twin engine, not sure the model. The Cessna 172 does recover nicely from spins.
Yes, both the 172 and 152 recover nicely – but it’s the difference between those two that caught me. As I was learning to fly in Colorado, and both myself and my instructor were…ahem…larger than FAA-standard adults, the 152 just wasn’t a great choice for dual instruction; especially in the summer, we’d spend half our time just getting to a decent altitude. So I took almost all my dual time in a 172, but was also checked out in the 152 so that I could save some money on my solo hours. But a 152 flown solo is still a good deal more responsive (esp. on the rudder) than a 172 with two plus-size adults on board. And on the day my UNintentional spin happened, I was in a 152…after only flying the 172s for a couple of weeks. And my instructor wanted me to practice stalls. The rest is history; I was a bit too aggressive hauling back the yoke, had unknowingly fed in some rudder – and there she went!
Fortunately, that vinyl upholstery cleans up pretty easily…;-)
TomTrevor bobm73 soaringeagle speaking of spins
check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zdOfhpe6rQ
inverted flat spins and all sorts of crazy things you never imagined a glider could do
and speaking of flat earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVF9tMO3q0
perlan 2 is a “space glider’ the 1st pressurized glider that wil fly higher then any winged planes ever flown
it will use mountain waves over argentina, to get above 50,000 then transverse to the polar vortex over antartica and fly up to 90,000 feet.. and maybe higher
it will be used to study the ozone layer
the perlan 2 has already made its 1st test flights and should make its record breaking flight at any time now, in the next month or 2
soaringeagle TomTrevor bobm73
Re: “perlan 2 is a “space glider’ the 1st pressurized glider that wil fly higher then any winged planes ever flown”
I think another glider already has the altitude record…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIoRWIgzvbM
😉
bobm73 soaringeagle TomTrevor well the space shuttle is technically a glider ..a motor glider in that it glides powerless to a landing, but that would make it a ‘primary glider’ the predecessors to sailplanes
the difference being primary gliders can only go down, and at a rather steep glide angle.. 10-1 or 20-1 (aka best l/d) (lift over drag or best glide angle) sailplanes are in the 50-1 to 60-1 range meanning they can go 60 miles for every 1 mile of altitude.. but most importantly, they can climb in thermals, ridge wave and polar vortex lift
there is a glider altitude record of 50,000 feet, it was not a specially designed glider
it was not even a high performance single seat glider but a 2 seat ‘trainer’ although it was 1 of the newer glass ships that are still pretty high performance for a 2 seater
they worse space suites
if you ever been in a glider theres not much room for a space suit!
they had trouble using the controls, adjusting the instruments and by 50,000 they were cold and had enough
the perlan was the next step, a ship designed specifically for this task, to fly higher then any plane ever did, and gather vital info on the ozone layer
its pressurized, heated, carbon fiber so very light but very strong
its got a massive wingspan, and very likely a better l/d then even the most advanced racing gliders
i think it cost something like 9.7 million to build
bobm73 I think that last night I let this slide or might have even confirmed it. But in any event it is wrong. Gyroscopes could not behave as they do on earth if the earth was flat, but gyroscopic navigation most certainly does works outside of the earth. Inertial navigation is the main navigation tools used in spaceships and is the primary way that the space shuttle knows its orientation.
If you listen to tape of the count down for a space shuttle launch you will hear NASA confirm that the roll, pitch, and yaw, gyros are up and running properly.
TomTrevor bobm73
Re: “But in any event it is wrong. Gyroscopes could not behave as they do on earth if the earth was flat, but gyroscopic navigation most certainly does works outside of the earth.”
Hi, Tom –
No, I don’t believe what I wrote was incorrect. Note that I specifically was talking about a gyrocompass, which is a somewhat different beast than a gyroscope as used in an inertial navigation system or a directional/heading indicator. In a true gyrocompass, the gimbal mount of the gyro is constrained (typically via weights) such that axis of rotation must remain horizontal, where “horizontal” in this case is defined as parallel with the Earth’s surface. Under this constraint, the axis of rotation must align as best it can with the axis of rotation of the Earth itself (the rotation of the Earth causes a torque which forces this to occur) and so the axis of the gyroscope will always align with true (not magnetic) north. Hence a gyrocompass is of use only on a body with reasonably rapid rotation – and so the operation of a gyrocompass proves that the Earth is in fact rotating (and if you wanted to delve into it to a sufficient degree, would even show the rate of the Earth’s rotation!).
Inertial navigation as used in spacecraft, or in the “directional gyro” (heading indicator) in most aircraft, does not employ this principle but instead uses the fact that a gyroscope will maintain its orientation in space – so once it is set to a reference direction and spun up, it can be used as a directional reference. In the case of the heading indicator, the rotation of the Earth actually causes a problem, as the gyroscopic axis moves away from the intended direction WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH (it obviously stays the same in “absolute” terms). This is why the heading indicator must regularly be checked and readjusted against the magnetic compass. And, of course, overly violent manuevers can cause the gyro to “tumble” (i.e., the gimbals are never completely without friction and inertia, and so you can force the axis off its “fix”). You may recall the scene in the movie “Apollo 13,” when the spacecraft was being randomly moved around by outgassing from the service module, and Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) was trying to get it under control using the thrusters. And he was warned that he was “flirting with gimbal lock,” meaning that the gyroscopic attitude indicator (AKA the “eight ball”) was in danger of hitting the stops of the gimbal mount, at which point the directional “lock” of the gyro would be lost. But obviously THAT sort of gyroscopic navigation device doesn’t rely on planetary rotation to function. But in a spacecraft application, once the gyro has “tumbled” you can’t easily re-orient it, since there’s no possibility of return to a gravity-defined “level flight” (and then using the gyro’s caging mechanism to reset it, assuming it has one, as you would in an aircraft).
Austruth And with a gyroscope we are again talking about something explained by Sir Isaac, not something made up by NASA, Newton explained it as he explained gravity.
gharrison bobm73
“They did a very good job” is not only not entirely true, but subjective at best, considering our understanding of physics and gravity is pretty much isolated to one body in a sea of trillions of bodies. Physics and gravity do NOT apply the same everywhere.
You say that as if you know it to be a fact. The fact is that we have absolutely no reason to suspect that is the case except in the most extreme of circumstances. And it is for that reason that we are adamant that to describe gravity as ‘just a theory’ is at the very least misleading and more to the point, in this discussion, of whether or not the Earth is flat or round, it is very, very wrong.
Our understanding of gravity and other physics keeps all modern day technology working. Everything from data-centres, auto-mobiles, laptops, cellphones, GPS systems, unstable fly-by-wire fighter jets, nuclear power stations, civil engineering, architecture, the list is endless. The flat Earthers are ignorant to the amount of science that they see at work every day. Your input into this discussion is both misleading and arrogant. We may not know ‘everything’ but we know a hell of a lot more than you seem to credit us with.
slymonster Blunite01 But you don’t even need Einstein to know how gravity basically works here on Earth at human speeds, Newton will do, dropping something should do. But it doesn’t for these people.
TomTrevor slymonster Blunite01 I quite agree Tom. Denying that gravity exists is the dumbest thing I have come across in a very long time. Trying to get these people to understand the difference between the fact that gravity exists as a ‘law’ of physics and explaining why as a ‘theory’ seems to be too much for some people.These people who deny science yet use the internet have no idea how ironically ridiculous they sound.
slymonster
Yeah using those little electrons flying around at the speed of light, while other particles move close to that speed gain mass as they go.
“And this is why flat earth ideas exist. All the things you stated have been “debunked” by them and the counter facts are very convincing”
Unfortunately for your argument, that’s just not so. Yes, a few of the arguments put forward by the flat Earth crackpots (and there really is no other suitable word for them) may look convincing at first glance, especially if you’re not very familiar with physics, geometry, etc.. But NONE of them stand up to even a few moment’s serious thought, and the evidence in favor of the Earth being spherical really is overwhelming. No one who’s actually familiar with the subject has thought the Earth to be flat for well over 2,000 years.
The flat Earth ideas exist for a number of reasons, but basically it’s because those promoting them, for whatever specific reason – desperately WANT them to be true, and many others accept those “arguments” without seriously investigating them. Because if you DO look at them seriously, and really try to honestly address the huge number of questions the flat Earth model raises, you inevitably wind up with the whole thing collapsing like the nonsensical house of cards that it is.
(And one key point is simply this: if you are either unwilling or unable to run the appropriate experiments, and do the math, FOR YOURSELF, then no, you are really not seriously investigating these ideas. You are simply taking on faith what you have been told. And that is not “science,” not by a long shot.)
bobm73 I was foolish enough to watch yet another Eric Dubay video a few weeks ago. He was claiming that sundials proved the Earth was flat because they were still accurate after 100’s of years. And yes, to those who are not capable of ‘joined-up thinking’ (my term for critical thinking) it could have been quite compelling. Of course, everyone who understands what is going on knows that we adjust our time, which is a human construct, based on where the sun is in the sky. So yes, a sundial should be accurate after 100’s of years. That’s how we determine the time, by why the sun is in the sky. I would be seriously worried if the sun wasn’t at it’s highest point at noon..
How can people not see through this?
We have leap days, we even ave leap seconds, and all due to where the Earth is with relation to the sun that we orbit.
You know this Bob, but how do we convince the gullible?
slymonster bobm73 post daily scientifically accurate, logical, yet easy to understand even by the uneducated debunking articles on http://www.flatearthdebunked.com
take every flat earth claim and break it down tear it apart and prove it wrong
and prove erics real intention…to lead a cult
slymonster bobm73
Re:
“You know this Bob, but how do we convince the gullible?”
It may be too late for some of them. The key here, I believe, is to combat ignorance AND an alarming lack of critical thinking skills, but that last one needs to be done very early on in the educational process. It’s very difficult, at least in my experience, to change the basic way in which an adult thinks.
What’s ironic is that, as we see in this case, so many of the believers in these pseudoscientific, “crackpot” notions (the “flat Earth” nonsense, astrology, creationism, etc.) see themselves as actually BEING the “thinking” ones, somehow fighting some grand conspiracy which is “suppressing the truth” (when of course the rest of the world simply sees them as ignorant and/or deluded). And it doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference how much evidence to the contrary is presented or how many holes in their particular belief system are shown to exist. Their minds are made up, and that’s that. It is VERY difficult to open a mind after it’s been closed.
Frankly, I think we could do a lot if we simply improved the state of science education (which SHOULD include training in critical thinking skills) worldwide, but that doesn’t seem to be making much headway, either. There have certainly been some good attempts; I particularly like what people like Bill Nye have been trying to do. But it doesn’t seem to be enough.
slymonster bobm73 It may have been a mistake for me to come back here, when one hangs out with stupid people one tends to get stupider..
When did having ones own ideas become crack pot? Everything you believe in now including the globe earth was considered crackpot ideas at one point. Its ok to suspect other things. Calling someone crazy for having a new theory is a sign of brainwashing, just like the church back then who brainwashed everyone into thinking round was a crazy shape of the earth. If we lived in a perfect world where the govt never lied to us, we wouldnt have this doudt. But you must know life is twisted by now.
Blunite01
“When did having ones own ideas become crack pot?”
It didn’t. What’s “crackpot” is blindly following the assertions of whackos who have not and cannot demonstrate the truth of what they are saying, and whose every statement collapses like a house of cards if you look at it even halfway seriously. And that’s exactly what you’re doing.
“Everything you believe in now including the globe earth was considered crackpot ideas at one point. Its ok to suspect other things. Calling someone crazy for having a new theory is a sign of brainwashing”
No, calling someone crazy for promoting ideas that simply CANNOT be so is just calling it like it is. That sort of behavior is irrational. And it’s not a new “theory” – a “theory” is a hypothesis which has already been tested and shown to be in agreement with ALL the observed evidence. You are very far from having anything that meets that requirement.
“just like the church back then who brainwashed everyone into thinking round was a crazy shape of the earth.”
What is this “brainwashing” that you keep talking about? How is it achieved? How can you claim that you yourself have not been “brainwashed” by those promoting these nonsensical beliefs? I can show precisely why I believe what I believe – I can demonstrate the truth of these beliefs, through simple experiments and calculations. Can you? If so, why haven’t you?
Blunite01 Conspercy theorists aren’t motiviated by truth though. They latch on to conspericy because they are contrarians. They have to be opposite the masses because on some phsycholocical level they hate humanity. They want to feel superior and the promise of secret knowledge is seductive to them.
Can you explain the curvature trigonometry that doesnt work out ie the 8 inches squared per mile as this one i have tested and doesnt make sense
The ship going around the sphere from the horizon, is easy to debunk just grab your binoculars or telescope and you will see the whole ship again!
HeinzMedina Well, the best way to know is to try.
rhooManu HeinzMedina Why does everyone put so much importance on ships? It’s so hard to actually know the ship’s size and distance, your height above the water, etc., etc., accurately, and then there’s no way to account for refraction effects, waves, and so forth. Why not look at something a little bigger, so that we can be SURE? For instance:
Why is is that you can see the cliffs of Dover from the coast of France, but you can’t see Madagascar from Africa?
Why can you NEVER see the island of Cuba from Florida?
Why can’t you see Oahu from the shores of Maui, but you CAN see the peak of Haleakala (the highest point on Maui) from Oahu, at least on a very clear day?
Anyone want to tackle these?
HeinzMedina i guess you tok some flattards word for that and never actually tried it because..you will not
if you think you can then why can’t you use that telescope and see the conto=inent on the other side of the ocean…
stop believing everything these idiots say its all lies you can not see farther past the horizon with a telescope then you can with the naked eye
As open minded neutral I can’t help noticing that the globalists (if that is the right term) seem to be far more aggressive and disparaging. Since the Earth as a globe is the taught and accepted theory it is encumbent upon the majority globalists to sensibly and calmly “educate” the Flat Earth proponents. However most of the globalist posters here are behaving in a disparaging and quite arrogant manner which is unfortunately a norm in our society. The article however should be applauded for its lack of smugness and attempt to present the global argument. I do however struggle with nearly all of the evidence presented in the article, since these points of proof seem to rely almost exclusively on the earth being a globe anyway. Ie you have to trust other facets of the globalist theory to make them correct. The point about images is irrelevant because anything can be faked. I am genuinely interested though in how the flat earth theorists explain timezones and night/day…anyone please?
CHHUCKMUCHINGO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdxgIyEPCxk
The sun is close and acts more or less like a spot light for a terrible analogy.
Every line of longitude counts as one hour. Time zones are just a construct of man.
at 11:00 – 11:15 pause and see where the sun stops. That will be 12 o’clock at that point. Every line of longitude from that point constitutes one hour
Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO
And how would this explain that in December South Africa, Southern Australia and the Southern tip of Argentina all have over 16 hours of sunlight?
And how does it explain that in these locations, all year round, the sun tracks across the sky in a counter clockwise direction? The flat Earth model shows the sun going clockwise, wherever you are on Earth?
Answer: It can’t. This can only be explained on a globe Earth.
I think that about sums up your Flat Earth theory: It doesn’t work, and millions of people can see with their own eyes why it doesn’t.
slymonster Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO it only works in cgi manipulation of the gullible
its pretty damn good at misleading people …who don’t think it through
Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO you actually believe that, why would the sun act like a spotlight… think dude think
Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO Nice video; it only has one problem, and that is that it is flat-out (no pun intended!) impossible.
The first good attempt to determine the distance to the sun took place over 2,000 years ago; the Greek philosopher Aristarchus estimated that distance at what in modern terms would be about 5 million miles. He would’ve done much better, as his method was correct but he lacked an accurate means of measuring angles and made an error of about 2.5 degrees, which threw his calculation off. Using Aristarchus’ method but with modern equipment – and let’s note that literally ANYONE could do this – will give you a number somewhere around the accepted value of around 92,900,000 miles. To claim that this is wrong is to deny basic geometry, and again, ANYONE can perform these measurements and calculations. Why don’t the flat-Earth proponents DO this?
And with the distance to the Sun indisputably determined, it’s not difficult at all to measure its diameter; obviously, all you need to do is to measure the visible size of the Sun’s disc, in degrees, and the rest is again basic geometry. And when you do this, you will get something around the accepted value of a bit under 900,000 miles in diameter. If you want to dispute this, fine – but you’re going to have to show where these VERY simple measurements and calculations go wrong.
Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO “Time zones are just a construct of man.”
Obviously, but don’t you think it’s rather convenient NOT to have “noon” mean “when the Sun is directly overhead” in one part of the Earth while at the same time meaning “the middle of the night” in another?
By the way, there are no set “lines of longitude” – every 15 degrees of longitude is a difference of about one hour in time, since 360/24 = 15. Which is why the lines on a globe – or on the map – are generally shown every 15 degrees.
There are many, many other problems with the flat Earth model that simply go away when you realize that the Earth really IS round, many of which are obvious and others perhaps not so much. But I’ll leave those for a bit later.
bobm73 Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO Why has no one ever found the edge of the Earth?
TomTrevor bobm73 Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO They have found it, back in the 60’s – Look up the Antarctic Treaty. You will be amazed by what You find.
VictorTalha TomTrevor bobm73 Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO What do you think would be so “amazing” about the Antarctic Treaty? Here’s the full text:
http://www.ats.aq/documents/ats/treaty_original.pdf
What’s so amazing?
bobm73 VictorTalha TomTrevor Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO
What is amazing is that the FE’ers cite the treaty as evidence of a ‘cover-up’. And then go on to say that Antarctica is protected by a huge military force which goes against the very reason for the treaty and one of the more prominent things that the treaty is against.
It’s just another example of how they contradict themselves.
slymonster bobm73 VictorTalha TomTrevor Marked2 CHHUCKMUCHINGO It’s particularly absurd when one considers the following:
1. The continent of Antarctica was explored LONG before the treaty was signed (in 1959), including two successful expeditions to the South Pole by 1913.
2. There have now been many expeditions to the Pole, including several by private groups and at least one completed by a solo individual:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
3. The “flat Earth” model would require the Antarctic coast to be literally tens of thousands of miles long – and it simply isn’t.
4. The “flat Earth” model would also make a number of Southern Hemisphere commercial flights literally impossible to complete with existing equipment, and per their schedules, as has been pointed out here several times.
5. Magnetic compasses could not possibly work the way they do – in the supposed “flat Earth” map, where is the SOUTH magnetic pole supposed to be located? And once you figure that out – tell us all how a magnetic compass would read when one is located near the OPPOSITE side of the supposedly flat Earth.
6. This “huge military force” that’s supposedly guarding the Antarctic – why can’t we find any people (i.e., more than a very few shills) who claim to have served there?
What’s really amazing is that there is still anyone who accepts the flat-Earth nonsense. It is completely and utterly impossible for the Earth to be flat, and that’s all there is to it – and if you disagree, then PLEASE investigate this for yourself rather than continuing to blindly accept the statements (and YouTube videos, etc.) of these crackpots.
CHHUCKMUCHINGO theres no such thing as globalists, flat earthers are a cult zan d identify themselves zas flat earthers, realists, are just educated inteligent people
the reason we get frustrated and call them morons so often is because they are deliberately imune to facts and proof, you tell them to look up at the sky and see a satellite themselves they deny the sky is real
flat earthers deny all of reality, from gravity to the existence odf space, they claim the moons a hologram..etc etc
ok you asked about night and day..get ready for an intro to fflat earth theory and why they get mocked so readily
the sun is only 3000 miles away, 32 miles across, annd does not emit light omnidirectionally, but the earths magnetic feild pulls the light out of the sun like a spotlight
if that were true it would be pulled towards the pole.. but lets overlook that. a 32 mile sun at 3000 miles up can be seen in thier model a 6000 miles east and west yet new york city at 32+ miles, and its entire 4000 mile coastline cannot be seen at under 3000 miles
and again the sun would never set only get smaller staying 26.3 degrees above he horizon
they claim it doesnt set, just moves out of visual range, all without getting smaller, and visual range is infinate, the stars we see are billions of light yeadrs away, trillions of miles and some smaller then our sun
you see why they get mocked they do not think through anything they claim.. its a cult like belief system that requires the denial of all facts, all proof
you can take a flat earther to the south pole and they wil insist it was al a greenscreen in a walk in freezer
CHHUCKMUCHINGO Well, I guess you won’t be patient a long time when someone deny continuously that 2 + 2 = 4. Even when you told him just to count, he refuses and keep yelling that you can’t prove he’s wrong, and that you’re only saying that because you’re a poor sheep who’s been taught lies for his entire lifetime.
rhooManu CHHUCKMUCHINGO conspiracy theorists have a mental condition. Seriously. They need psychiatric help but they are too obstinate to admit it. They also have a hatred for humanity. If they can find anything contrary to what the masses believe they will latch onto it because it separates them from the rest and makes them feel superior. The masses are stupid you see so conspiracy peddlers feed and exploit those attitudes by offering a promise. A conspiracy theory offers a promise of secret knowledge and lets you into a club that’s a minority group of “truth seekers.” When someone devotes themselves to this club they can no longer be reasoned with. Their minds are gone.
Here’s a bit of logic for people. Water is ALWAYS level. One inch of water, Two inches of water, Ten feet of water, Ten miles of water, 1,000 miles of water will ALWAYS be level. So, to the globalists, at what point and where on Earth does the water curve? Is there any emperical data or photos that can show this? If so where?
How about a golf ball size amount of it floating as a sphere when not acted upon by gravity, such as International Space Station video. Or performing the same experiment on the “vomit comet” plane when in free-fall.
Or rain drops?
ThaddaeusAllen theres no such thing as not enacted upon by gravity, even in the vomet comet you feel zero g force thats because your speed,. and gravity create a zero g situation, not that your not being enacged upon by gravity you are just feeling zero g force
the space station, if it was not moving so fast would experience something like 98% earth gravity, maybe 88% its not far enough away to have even low gravity
everywhere in space no matter how faryou are from anything you are affected by the gravity of all very large objects even iff it is only to a tiny degree
but your right when water is isolated from gravitational forces it forms a ball from its own gravitational pull
You are right, of course. Guess I should have put “not acted upon” in quotes!U0001f913U0001f44dU0001f3fb
@soaringeagle, you are right, of course -(guess I should have put “acted upon by gravity” in quotes!) it was my attempt to phrase it in more simplified terms. 😉
ThaddaeusAllen i know, it has to be a balancing act, between simple enough for a flat earther to grasp, but accurate enough that they can’t just dismiss it entirely
unfortunately, flat earthers look up to people who Aren’t sure how many fingers and toes they have as their guides, the leaders of the movement..
so many are so far gone there is no signs of brin activity at all, just programmed responses that make absolutely no sense to anyone who thinks about them
http://youtu.be/bKk_7NIKY3Y
ThaddaeusAllen
I found the most convincing Flat Earth video yet! Starting at 1:15…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA
Of course, you probably don’t believe NASA, so perform your own experiment!
http://youtu.be/wu44Hd43y6o
Marked2 all water is curved, it all pulls to the center of gravity it is “level” in relation to the center of gravity only, but all water is curved at its surface
Marked2 define level
level is relative to the center of gravity, all “levels” the tools used to determine if something is level rely on a buble, or plum bob that is pulled towards the center of gravity
so while everything that is level, ids curved
i know this is hard to understand from a flat earth perspective but all water onearth is pulled by gravity towards the center of gravity, or the center of the earth, so every glass, every pool, every pond lake and ocean is curved, because all the water in it is pulled towards 1 central point
Marked2 You aren’t very observant are you?
Do you believe in gravity? I don’t mean the general theory of relativity explanation, just the way things work on Earth type of gravity. I mean do you think that when you drop something it falls down? Before I explain how water works. I want to see if if it worth my time, I want to know if you have the intellectual capacity to even begin to understand.
By the way, because “NASA is SATAN” and stuff, here’s a cool japanese satellite doing great pics.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3161277/The-GREY-planet-Japanese-weather-satellite-captures-true-colour-images-showing-Earth-REALLY-looks-like-without-filters-editing.html
And some cool timelapse done with it http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/science/An-Image-of-Earth-Every-Ten-Minutes.html
What can we conclude now ? TEH JAPANIZ ARE ILLUMINATEES TOO, CUZ DEY DOZ FAKE EARTH CGI ! zOMG WE IZ DOOMED !
The Japanese must not like Papua New Guinean’s . They scrubbed them out by the looks of it .
Austruth Don’t know what you mean by “they scrubbed them out by the look of it”?
Papua New Guinea is not there in that first link , it covers the top of Australia
Austruth Really ? http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2015/52/1450689303-earth.gif
Austruth I can’t wait to read your answer on this ♥.
I can’t even answer that . I can’t see that country normally and within 2 mins you use some shit to highlight where the country is . Who has that at there disposal .
Austruth Well, I did it myself, with Google maps and Photoshop.
Yeah, I give you this point: the island isn’t very easy to see at the first look, because it’s melting with a dark part, clounds and what seems to be snow.
But this is exactly the point: you’re not paying attention. It’s easily visible if you take just a few seconds to Watch it better. Because you’re so deeply persuaded that they’re lying on every piece of work and that YOU can point this out with the power of your hinsight, that you actually believe they could achieve such a huge amount of impressive work of CGI that requires weeks just to get a final render AND just forget a 786 000km² country, in plain sight.
I told you: drop this idea of them doing such dumbest mistakes about “not having the color right”, “forget countries” or “forget to add the curve”.
rhooManu Austruth This is just the type of ignorant denial one expects from the FE’ers. Like their claim that we only have one picture of the Earth taken from space, which clearly isn’t the case. Or the fact that they say that the horizon is always at eye level, again, clearly false and provable to be false with no special equipment. Or that gravity is ‘only a theory’. I have been taking a break from the discussion while on vacation in Tenerife. I am back now and feel a little recharged. Looking forward to the next bout, though it is often very much a facepalm a minute debating with the FE’ers.
LIVE NOW ON YOUTUBE: Astronauts out in space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JprDnyJPUDQ
The experiment should be called how to create experiments to fit the mold
Which experiment, and why? You really need to give some context.
bobm73 I was wondering that myself. Of course it could be any experiment as scientists don’t usually just conjure up some random experiment to explore something, they usually have something in mind. It’s no use seeing how many slices you can get out of a banana if you are trying to find a new heavy element.
Blabber I was wondering that myself Bob. Of course it could be any experiment as scientists don’t usually just conjure up some random experiment to explore something, they usually have something in mind. It’s no use seeing how many slices you can get out of a banana if you are trying to find a new heavy element.
Djabir there are no plausible explanations, they have explanations yes but not plausible ones in fact they make no sense at all and are impossible
you can see the curve, you see it allthe time, wheres the sun set to? it disapears behind the curve
why cant you see the other side of the ocean? because of the curve
but you hit it on the head with your last statements
they make you think that the people who discovered the earths round are evil
lets look at this a second
the 1st person to suggest we orbit the sun, and not the sun us… what happened to him? off with his head!
the 1st person to suggest that the earth was spinning…off with his head
the catholic church killed scientists, dozens of them ffor proving the earths round
flat earthers have an agendda
1 make you paranoid, make you believe that the ones pushing the globe are (take your pick) satanists, masons, the illuminagti, a massive government plot nasa etc
2 fill your head with delusions thers a massive ice wall theres a dome, nobody has ever been to a popular tourist location (antartica) youd be shot if you go gravity doesnt exist the moon doesnt exist space doesnt exist holograms existed before caveman drew on walls
3 make you feel like you are in on the biggest secret in the world…one that would change everything if its revealed
4 get you to join their cult..the society.. make no mistakes it is a cult
oh and ofcourse the 99.9999999% of the world that knows its round they are all paid by the masons to say that
see how they turn everyone with an education into an enemy?
they proudly say they rejected everything they were taught in school was a lie
so
you really think that thbe entire global education system is only trying to keep you stupid by making you smart enough to advance humanity/
the flat earthers are frauds, nothing more
soaringeagle Djabir So why all the NASA footage are all fraud? What it’s the need behind making all these false images and “proofs”? They aren’t truth tellers, at all.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/fake-moon-landing_545.jpg
http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2015/51/7d465727954ce6acf69afda6fd236c4c2c676db9.jpg
There is no need to lie to tell something that is true. Think with your heart, why do they do this?
It’s not necesary to pay people to say Earth is round; they betray people just by using propaganda. Nazism rised just by using massive propaganda. Brainwashing!
And, come on! Show me just one picture of the curve of the Earth, just ONE. Show me JUST ONE, and I swear I quit thinking earth is flat. But be careful not to show a GoPro shot.
Djabir soaringeagle
So come on think. The moon is setting or rising, behind the water. So why don’t we see the other coast? It can’t be because it is too far away, because the moon if farther away. So atmospheric perspective can not be why we don’t see the other coast. It can’t be because the other coast would be dark because even a dark coast would show up as a silhouette. There I satisfied your condition. A picture of the curvature of the earth.
TomTrevor Djabir soaringeagle by next week i will have a camera with such a powerful zoom i can photograph saturn and jupiter and even at least 4 or 5 of jupiters moons
now a dumbass on youtube used the same exact camera pointed at a boey
to prove there was no curve, the boey was only about 2 miles out, and the entire zoom range you can clearly see the curve just beyond the boey…
when i pointed this out to him he claimed that even if the boey was only 2 miles out, you shouldnt see it if the camera was 1 foot off the ground
now if you watch this video you do not see sand close to the frame in fact you can clearl,y see from the boey angle that you are looking slightly downwards at it, so he flat out lied it was a minumum of 6 foot above the sand..not water, sand, and probably a good 4 feet uphill from the water so 10 feet above sea leevel..minimum
you point out that they are clearly lookijng right at the curve, and they lie out their asses just to preserve the delusions
soaringeagle TomTrevor Djabir on the Horizon you should be able to see more than 3 miles anything slightly above that even farther.
Djabir soaringeagle By the way your photo actually proves that the moon landing can’t have been faked. The horizon in your photo of the soundstage is flat as it would have to be on such a small scale, but you can clearly see the curvature of the moon in this photo.
TomTrevor Djabir soaringeagle not to mention low light means slow shutter speed that jump in earth gravity in that light would be a blurr only because of low gravity and the slowness of the jump would that photo be possible
youd need much brighter light to get a shutter speed above 1/250 or at least 1/125
this is closer tol 1/30
you can barely tell theres motion in the jump because its slower then it would be in earth gravity
TomTrevor Djabir soaringeagle Since when we are discussing about the curvature of the Moon? I told you with those photographs that all you think is “space travel” are actually a film productions. Its obvious the Moon is round; it’s evident that the planets are round; I love telescopes too! But that doesn’t prooves we live on “an astro” like Pluto or Mars; we live in The World. Notice the diference!
I’ve gotta sleep now guys. Maybe someday we all know the Truth.
♥ I love you! ♥
Djabir TomTrevor soaringeagle I have finally been able to got back to these previous post so I can finally answer your silliness.
The reason we are talking about it is because you claimed we didn’t land on the moon. We clearly did. Why does that matter? Because photos from the moon and from above it prove that earth is curved.
Djabir soaringeagle Explain to me again why the Soviet Union in the middle of the cold war decided to go along with NASA’s claim and they have never question the moon landing. oh yeah that’s right no one here has explained it the first time.
TomTrevor Djabir soaringeagle http://img12.deviantart.net/0888/i/2015/363/1/8/destructores_by_jgbenitez-d9lzt4i.png
Djabir soaringeagle waiting for an answer………… waiting……waiting …………..waiting………… just waiting. Ho, hum happy new year.
“So why all the NASA footage are all fraud? What it’s the need behind making all these false images and “proofs”?”
Why do you think the NASA images are “all fraud”? Because someone else – someone who clearly has their own agenda, just like everyone does – told you they were faked? Do you truly believe that this is the most sensible explanation?
The flat Earth proponents do NOT provide valid explanations for anything. Look back over all the comments that have been posted here – and note how many questions have been asked of them which have simply been ignored. If their model is correct, if they have a complete understanding of how things work, then why can’t these questions be answered? Instead, all we see are the same old examples of failures to “see any curvature” – ALWAYS in cases where the distances involved are relatively short, or there is a failure to account for differences in elevation or other relevant factors. Why not address some more clear-cut, large-scale examples – such as why Cuba can NEVER be seen from Florida, or why the Sun can clearly be seen to set below the horizon (when it should NEVER completely set if the Earth is flat)? Why do gyrocompasses work? How can an airliner fly from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile on schedule, if the Earth looks like they say it does? Why can’t you see the Big Dipper from Sydney, or the Southern Cross from Canada? If there’s no such thing as orbiting spacecraft,then how can you see (and photograph, at high enough magnification to show the structure and size) the International Space Station when it passes overhead? Why do Foucault pendulums work? What causes storm systems in the south to rotate in the opposite direction than storms in the north? How far away are the Sun and the Moon, and how large are they? What methods could you use to perform measurements like that?
But don’t take my word for this. That’s the whole point: you don’t have to take ANYONE’S word for it. You shouldn’t be deciding things like this based on who has the slickest YouTube videos or who gets the most “likes.” You can figure ALL of it out for yourself. You can do the measurements, perform the experiments, and run the calculations; none of it is all that complicated, and in fact quite a bit of it was done by some old Greeks a couple of thousand years ago, without calculators, PCs, or smartphones. In fact, using nothing more than their own brains and some simple tools (straight sticks and the like) and some high-school-level geometry. With nothing more than that, they figured things out pretty well centuries ago. All I ask is that you go about such an investigation fairly and with an open mind. And I’ll predict that this is the very last thing the flat-Earth proponents truly want you to do, because they know what the outcome of any such fair, honest, and thorough investigation is going to be. Just remember that for the answers to be true, they have to agree with ALL the evidence.
Djabir soaringeagle I really can’t see why a photograph of someone riding a quad bike in a space suit is supposed to be anything to do with either the moon or NASA faking anything. As for the other, how many space films and documentaries have been made? How do you know this photo is even from NASA?
• These are not proofs against the flat earth, simply because flat earthers got their own plausible ways to explain the same phenomenons. So, in many cases, it’s just a pre-judgment issue.• Showing NASA’s images as evidence is as naive as believe in Churches or another “authority” that tells you what is reality and what is not.
• The 8 point doesn’t proof enything. On the Classical model of the Earth the rotation of the Sun determines the Zones. The Sunllight fades away just becouse it goes thousands of miles away, and the are many interferencies that hides the Sunlight away; that illustration ist so unreal!
• I’m leaning towards the flat model, not so much for the explanations, (there are good explanations on both sides, exept one cannot ever see the curve of the earth) but rather due to knowing what kind of people promoted the theory of the spherical Earth.
But, well, let us not be arrogant, nobody has the truth.
(Maybe my english it’s not so good, sorry)
Mate…forget it . These guys are not here to here your side . They will bullshit you to no end . They have nothing better to do which tells me it’s their job to try to bullshit you . You know what you see..I know what I see and these guys done see shit .
Austruth Thanks bro, you calm me down with your words. I’ts no necesary to explain every single point of the Ancient Worldview, Flat Earth its just a “truth bomb time”…
Djabir Austruth “It’s not necesary to explain every single point of the Ancient Worldview,”
Actually, it is. If any part of ANY “worldview” conflicts with any of the available evidence, then that’s a problem which needs to be looked into and addressed, and that “worldview” modified or abandoned altogether if need be. You shouldn’t hold on to belief which fail to agree with the evidence, should you?
And that, basically, is the problem with the flat Earth model – it fails on so many counts. It simply does not make sense to accept it in light of those failures, until and unless those failures can be explained. Hence all the questions you see being raised here – and where are the answers to those? If they can’t be answered, then there’s something badly wrong with that “worldview,” right?
Austruth Here you are:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14119969
Photograph of the Earths curve taken by amateurs without a GoPro of fisheye lens.
Now will you admit the Earth has curvature?
slymonster Austruth Wow – what a great set of pictures, and what a fantastic example of a group of people working it out for themselves!
slymonster Austruth Why is the SUN so close to the earth?? I thought is was supposed 93 millions miles away. AND BTW< I put a ruler right up to the pics….guess what? NO CURVE! 🙂 The last few pics of course are mysteriously gone!
Here try watching this and show me the curve:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqUd2W2RqCw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIa5SKLdWj0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LzJrVKmBk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R77j9rUuky4
VictorTalha slymonster Austruth
“Why is the sun so close to the Earth”?
Ermm… it isn’t.
What makes you think it is?
VictorTalha slymonster Austruth “Why is the SUN so close to the earth??”
You’re kidding, right? You think you can tell how far the Sun is from the Earth, based on ANY of those pictures?
“I thought is was supposed 93 millions miles away”
Not only supposed to be, it IS. You can measure it for yourself, using some very simple equipment. Why don’t you do that? Worried what the answer will turn out to be? The method and theory behind this is here:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate
The simplest reference for the amateur to use (since it’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to do a radar measurement of the distance to, say, Venus) is the Moon, since the distance to the Moon can be easily determined by any amateur radio operator who’s set up to do simple VHF “moonbounce”communications.
“AND BTW< I put a ruler right up to the pics….guess what? NO CURVE! :-)”
I have a metal straightedge here, and it clearly shows the curvature on the last pic (the one you get when you click the left arrow from the opening group photo).
“The last few pics of course are mysteriously gone!”
Nonsense. I just accessed that site again, and saw the same pics that were there when I first checked the link a few hours ago. No mystery here. Are you sure you know how to navigate that page?
VictorTalha slymonster Austruth Wow. Those videos are just…I can’t find the right words. They’re pretty obviously made by people who have no grasp of some very basic concepts of geometry, optics, vision, physics, etc.. That last one, especially, is a real hoot, until you remember that these are supposedly educated adults who can vote.
Yes, you SHOULD challenge what you think you know, and keep an open mind (but not so open that your brains fall out).
Djabir
1. The FE’ers explanations are not plausible, they require a leap of faith and contradict far too much scientific evidence.
2. Why just NASA? There are around 60 different countries with space programs. A lot of them taking photos of the Earth from space.
3. So you can see the sun, or moon, from thousands of miles away, but not mount Everest, or whole continents? That illustration is actually totally illogical.
4. Why, what kind of people promoted the spherical Earth? Scientists, sailors, explorers, philosophers? Saying you don’t believe something because of the people who promote it is like saying that you don’t believe armies exist because you don’t agree with violence.
And your last point. We have the truth, the Earth is a globe, you just don’t believe it. That’s not me being arrogant.
Re: “These are not proofs against the flat earth, simply because flat earthers got their own plausible ways to explain the same phenomenons.”
If that were true, they’d have a point. But the problem is that they DON’T have any plausible ways to explain these phenomena. The explanations given, at least so far, have huge holes in them and simply do not agree with what we actually see. Take, for instance, the idea that day and night are caused by a relatively small, nearby Sun somehow circling above the disc of the flat Earth. We’ll ignore for the moment the questions of how it is suspended, why it moves in this circular path, and so on – the real problem is that this just is NOT what anyone actually sees. If that “explanation” were correct, you would never see the Sun set below the horizon anywhere – especially not at sea! – and you would see it curving away as it moved off into the distance. You could also see the light of that Sun SOMEWHERE in the sky, to some degree, at all times, anywhere on Earth. None of these are what we actually see. So how is this a “plausible” explanation?
“Showing NASA’s images as evidence is as naive as believe in Churches or another “authority” that tells you what is reality and what is not.”
Sure – if that one agency was the only place providing such images. As was mentioned already, there are over 60 nations with space programs producing the same sort of images, and we now have seen examples of these images being captures by private groups and individuals (note the case of a small group of people in England using a weather balloon to photograph the curvature of the Earth!). You could do this sort of thing yourself – and if you TRULY want to know the answer, then why don’t you” Why take ANYONE else’s word for it?
“The 8 point doesn’t proof enything. On the Classical model of the Earth the rotation of the Sun determines the Zones. The Sunllight fades away just becouse it goes thousands of miles away, and the are many interferencies that hides the Sunlight away; that illustration ist so unreal!”
But that’s not what we see, as was already pointed out – the sunlight DOESN’T just “fade away.” You can SEE the sun going down below the horizon. Why should that happen, if it is a light source which is ALWAYS above the surface of a flat Earth? And why, when the sun is “fading” at our location, can’t we see large objects in other places which are still illuminated by it? Or even large objects which are fairly close to us? Why can’t we see the Rocky Mountains of Colorado from the middle of Kansas? Why can’t we see Cuba from Florida? Why can’t we see the Southern Cross from Canada, or the North Star from Australia? All of these things should be possible if the Earth was really a flat disc – doesn’t it bother you at all that the flat Earth model proponents have NO answers for these questions?
“I’m leaning towards the flat model, not so much for the explanations, (there are good explanations on both sides, exept one cannot ever see the curve of the earth) but rather due to knowing what kind of people promoted the theory of the spherical Earth.”
Reality isn’t influenced by what we would like it to be, so what sort of people are promoting this theory or that theory have exactly zero to do with which, if any, are true. You don’t determine truth through a popularity contest. If you really, truly care, you FIND OUT for yourself. But even if you don’t want to do that – have you really looked into what “kind of people” are promoting the flat Earth idea? Again – it doesn’t really matter one way or another regarding what is really TRUE, but you seem to think that the whole idea of a spherical Earth has been promoted by some evil group, and the flat Earth supporters are all just wonderful people; but do you really know this? And do you really even know who first promoted the idea that the Earth was round? (Hint: this is NOT a new idea, not by a couple of thousand years!)
bobm73 the head of the flat earth society is a well known fraud and plagerists he uses multiple names he is a wannabe cult leader and as much as he blames the masons he is a high level mason
where did he get his start/? in 1990 a video was made by a teacher to teach critical thinking, to teach that many people will believe anything they are shown if its claimed to be the truth, a d lastly that the media can be used to manipulate the massses
the video purposely made rediculous claims, showing herds of cattle in antartica, brought up the flat motionless earth the ice wall the dome etc etc
so what did this wannabe cult leader plagerist do plagerised that video, using it as proof the earths flat and motionless , he manipulated thousands into believing nonsense , and he got his cult like following
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/where-todays-belief-in-a-flat-earth-may-have-come-from/
there you have it
the people you are following are purposely manipulating you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mfJXp4ePu0 Watch this video at 12:44 mins and debunk it for me. Go ahead! 🙂 Thnx
yes very good video but as these guys are now probably weather experts they will debunk it quite easily-Cough cough
Austruth I guess because they are Smarter Than That! LOL ,-) Smarter than real raw physical proof, rather they keep going back to what they were spoon fed to believe since birth. BTW, I know why it’s taught this way in school around the world: The Jesuit Society – Knights of Malta and those of the Jesuits that infiltrated the Freemasons, Did You know the first schools and universities were all founded by the Jesuits? It’s so cray-cray what You can find out when You deprogram Your brain and relearn everything the right way without bias and the undeniable manipulation of the powers that be.
The reason why they do not want You to know about where we live is because we ARE ALL SOVEREIGN! We are ALL ROYALTY However, the 6 corporations that own ALL of the other major corporations of the world, and the 23 families that own them, well, they do not want You to know. They would rather You live Your economy producing and slave lives under their thumbs!
So, people will believe what they want, and people will remain slaves as they should! If You are not worthy to be awoken, and worthy to see with clear eyes the realm in which we live, then so be it. But it’s not okay to mock one’s beliefs, even if they are absurd and ridiculous!
To each his own, I say.
When they finally take a space ship out to the edge of space and pan around 180 degrees and simply take a pic of the earth, that is when we can ALL know the truth. However, these CG renderings and manipulated videos and computer generated images are not cutting it and fooling those that have been woken up!
VictorTalha Austruth you dumbasss you just offered us cgi renderings of wind patterns
total hypocrite dont you think?
every single flat earth video relies 100% on cgi
because there is zero actual evidence of a flat earth
yet you deny all real photos are real
you do know the video you just showed us was all cgi right?
soaringeagle VictorTalha Austruth With nothing better to do on New Year’s day I find myself watching this stupid video. and there he is at about 22:00 wondering why rockets are launched over water “do they just go up and fall into the water?”
Jules Verne’s explained where rockets would be launched from and why. Rockets he thought would be launched either from Texas or Florida. The reason is we want a warm weather location where rockets can be launched year around. We want a coast, because rockets are not 100% reliable, rockets can and do blow up, we don’t want that happening over land, Imagine the challenger disaster if it was launched over land.
We want an east facing coast so that the spin of the earth below it can help propel the rocket to escape velocity. Some rockets at least missiles are launched over land. but with 2/3 of the earth being water no mater where a rocket it launched from it will be over water very soon and if this mysterious “they” really just wanted to drop them in the water they could do so easily even if they launched them from land.
TomTrevor soaringeagle VictorTalha Austruth i had some idiot say that nasa spends billions launching rockets and satellites only to crash them into the sea..
ofcourse deep sea divers find wrecked ships and planes all the time, but not a single rocket or satellite
and with thousands and thousands of boats ships and planes criss crossing the seas not 1 has seen rockets crashing into the sea
these flat earth videos are just a testament to how little thought they actually put into these videos
soaringeagle TomTrevor VictorTalha Austruth Well there has to be some space debris in the sea. If for no other reason than that the first stage of rockets might have fallen back to Earth relatively intact. Not having people hit by falling debris from stage separation is another reason they launch over the ocean.
TomTrevor soaringeagle VictorTalha Austruth ofcourse
but i think they are made to pretty much disintegrate
although they have i think been attempting to work on recoverable and reusable boosters
i know a few people working for nasa, at least 1 is working on new propulsion systems
the thing is, they are brilliant and come up with thousands of ideas, many of wich will take decades at least to develop but there are something like 8 tiers your projects have to go through before you can even begin any actual work on them
99% of the projects are weeded out in the 1st 3 tiers
only a very small number of projects ever actually become realities
given enough funding we would probably have gravity drives in the near future ..directional singularities that use gravity to push or pull a craft off distant objects
now here is an interesting idea
there have been a good number of gliders, motor gliders that have been modified to use cruise missile engines for launching them
but, imagine if the reverse was used, a plane like the perlan II project was fitted with a cruise missile engine
used mountain waves and the polar vortex to get above 80% of atmospheric density, fired off that missile engine and reach space
conventional rockets burn off something like 75% of the fuel just getting to 90,000 feet most of the fuel burnt is burned just to get that much fuel weight off the ground
if they could get 1/2 way there without using any fuel, and already be in much less dense air when they do fire off the engines they would not need nearly as much fuel or weight
I don’t believe the earth is flat or a globe, I know that military weapon systems do have or allow for the correlation of the globe, however with out actually performing my own experiments, reading and allowing an open mind to this suggestion, I cannot deny either! Being able to see distances / objects that look horizontal from a far greater distance than what we are told the earths curvature is. NASA also makes me wonder why they them selves have no shuttles any more. I don’t think that anyone should believe anything i am old book, especially religions. What your taught at school, should always be questioned. Life should be questioned. I don’t believe anyone has been to the moon, I have no evidence other than a grainy video. I also think it was a big game of who can first between the USA and Russia, who let’s face it are your only major threat. So just take everything with a pinch of salt, and try to answer your own questions, preform experiments. Grandfather knowledge is no good, you have to decide for yourself what this planet is. Peace out. Big love from Uk
Mikeonamike it is neither flat (how dumb is that) nor a globe but spherical 24 miles wider at equator then poles and very iregularly spaped especially if you only count the rocky part without the water the water makes it way more round then it really is
but you can see proof we were on the moon with your own eyes, not a grainy film, but actual proof that we left behind on the moon. get a telescope
or a nikon p900 (mine arives sunday!) and maybe the 4.5x hd super telephoto extender
look on the moon exactly where they say they landed and guess what you will see
1 the lander
2 the rover
3 the rovers tire tracks
4 the footprint trail (you wont see individual footprints just the trauil where they walked as a faint line but the rover tracks are clearly made by the rover)
5 the science station
6 if the magnifications good ejnough you can sort of see the flag
you can see undeniable proof that we were on the moon because we left proof there
remember, the lander seperated from the pod that brought them back to the orbitor
it is still sitting there plain as day easy to see with enough magnification
soaringeagle Mikeonamike You see what I do when I don’t know something is I ask and I try to learn. I don’t use my lack of knowledge as proof that other people must be wrong, which is what see flat earthers doing. So I have two question maybe soarineagle can answer. I have a telescope, how do I know where the astronauts landed?
The method Eratosthenes used to determine the circumference of the earth relies on parallel sunrays. How do we or more important how did Eratosthenes know that the sunrays are parallel?
TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike
The way I would determine whether or not the suns rays are (virtually) parallel is by measuring shadows of different sized objects. The shadows will either converge or diverge depending on the distance of the light source and the size of the light source compared with the size of the object. As the size and distance of the sun is pretty much fixed, by measuring the width of a shadow and comparing it to the object casting the shadow we can observe whether the light rays are parallel or not.
As it turns out, shadows cast by the sun are the same width as the object that casts the shadow, not to mention always nice and crisp.
The only conclusion we can make is that the sun is very far away and that the light rays are parallel, or incredibly, incredibly close to parallel.
slymonster TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike Actually, Eratosthenes already knew that the Sun was far enough away that its rays could be assumed to be parallel. His experiment with the shadows was performed around 240 BC – but about ten years earlier, another Greek philosopher, Aristarchus, had measured the distance to the Sun. While his method was correct, his measurements had a slight error (he was trying to estimate, visually, the angle between the Sun and the Moon at the time of a half Moon, and was off by about 2.5 degrees. This resulted in his value for the distance to the Sun being the equivalent, in modern terms, of about 5 million miles. This is, of course, MUCH smaller than the actual distance (about 93 million miles, which today can easily be verified using the same method but with a telescope for a more accurate angular measurement), but obviously it was safe to assume that the Sun was far enough away to produce essentially parallel rays on Earth.
Note again: ANYONE today can repeat these measurements and verify the distances to both the Sun and Moon for themselves. When this is done with even the most basic modern equipment (all you really need is a telescope – with a Sun filter, of course – and an accurate means of measuring angles), you WILL obtain values very close to the commonly-stated distances (about 239,000 miles to the Moon, 93,000,00 miles to the Sun), and with those distances and the angular measurements of the diameter of both bodies you can calculate their actual diameters in miles. In other words, we KNOW that the Sun is about 900,000 miles in diameter, and the Moon is about 2160 miles in diameter; we don’t have to take some “authority’s” word for it, we can do the measurements for ourselves. Given that, why ANYONE would question these figures is completely beyond me.
This also means, of course, that the sizes and distances required in the “flat Earth” model are literally IMPOSSIBLE; they CANNOT be correct, and ANYONE can verify this for themselves.
bobm73 slymonster TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike ofcourse everyone can verify these facts, but even without verifying facts, it is simple common sense
if the sun is 32 miles across and 3000 miles up
and can be seen at a angular distance of 6000 miles east and west
why cant we see a 32 mile wide city 2,000 miles away, let alone a 4000 mile long coastline
people don’t need accurate measurements or equipment to realize this makes no sense
they just need accurate thinking
if a is true then b must also be true,, but if b cant be verified then a must not be true
ie if you cant see new york from the coast of france then you shouldnt be able to see a 32 mile wide sun from 3000 miles
but if you can see a 32 mile wide sun from 3000 miles and cant see a 32 mile wide city from 2700 then there must be a curve in the way
ofcourse the suns not 32 miles and 3000 milesaway they just rationalize that in order to flatten the earth
in fact 1 flat earther insisted he saw clouds above the sun (he saw the sun through the clouds and assumed the clouds were therefore higher then the sun) this would mean that the sun would be lower then most jets fly
i guess a cow did jump over the moon, and it does get caught in tree branches and we could use a great big catapult to just toss our garbage into the sun
bobm73 slymonster TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike Thank for the thorough explanation. I had read the Wikipedia explanation and several other explanations and found them lacking, not that I question at all that the earth is curved, or that the sun is 93,000, 000 miles away the only question I had was about the techniques that were used. Thank you.
slymonster TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike thank you
TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike google “moon landing locations” or something like that
look through the images find the landmarks on a lunar map
soaringeagle TomTrevor Mikeonamike I think, however, that it’s very unlikely that you could resolve any of the landing site objects with an Earth-based telescope, at least with any instrument an amateur is likely to have access to.
However, there is one absolutely solid piece of evidence that you can easily demonstrate for yourself, although you might need the help of the astronomy department at your local college. Since the moon landings, there are a number of laser retroreflectors on the lunar surface, left there as part of the Apollo Lunar Science Experiment Packages (ALSEPs) on Apollos 11, 14, and 15. Any observatory with half-decent equipment can easily demonstrate that there is something VERY reflective in those specific locations, and which was not there prior to 1969-1971. This same experiment can also verify the distance to the Moon with extreme accuracy (which was its original purpose anyway).
bobm73 soaringeagle TomTrevor Mikeonamike well the 1 thing you might be able to see from earth based equipment is a line in the sand that is the rover tracks because it is pretty long ..narrrow..but long
and there have been amateur experiments done bouncing lasers off those reflectors , measuring the timke it took to return
soaringeagle bobm73 TomTrevor Mikeonamike
Of course even with a $200 dollar telescope we can conclude that the Sun is much further away than the moon, by the simple fact that we have to refocus the telescope. So their idea that the sun and moon are both the same size and same and distance away falls flat on it’s face there. And as all there ‘maths’ for the Earth being flat rests on that fact, not to mention their warped sense of perspective, all it should take is access to a cheap bit of 18th century technology to convince them they are wrong.
I won’t hold my breath though.
slymonster soaringeagle bobm73 TomTrevor Mikeonamike Agreed, and that is why I keep going back to Galileo. Although it was known for thousands of years that the Earth is curved and orbits the Sun, Galileo was the first to prove it with such rigor that eventually even the Catholic Church had to admit he was right. While he did prove it mathematically, he didn’t do it with calculas (becauses that wouldn’t be invented until Newton came along, and Newton was born in 1643, a year after Galileo died.) that means that anyone one who has an understanding of algebra can do the same calculations Galileo did. Remember his telescope was one of the first telescopes ever invented. It was nowhere near as good as the amateur ones we have now. In fact it wasn’t even a reflecting telescope that wouldn’t be invented until Newton (who was born in 1643, in case you flat earthers have already forgotten.).
bobm73 soaringeagle TomTrevor Mikeonamike I was going to ask if a hand held laser pointer could bounce of those reflectors, but I didn’t really think it could.
TomTrevor bobm73 soaringeagle Mikeonamike Tom – in theory a handheld laser pointer could bounce, but in practice you would not be able to get meaningful data. Like any other laser, the pointer produces a fairly well-collimated beam, but by the time it made it to the reflector and back (and I’m assuming it would be mounted in some way that would make it stable enough to stay on-target), the beam would be dispersed and attenuated enough (two trips through the atmosphere, for one thing) that I don’t think any practical detector could identify the return pulse.
bobm73 TomTrevor soaringeagle Mikeonamike Bobmm I tend to think that is correct. I still thought it would be interesting to try it one could get the exact location of the reflectors and calculate the exact position to aim the laser, but I don’t know ho one would correct for refraction.
At last a true sensible approach thankyou
Military does not allow for curvature or the corialis effect. They’ve already said that, that is red flag #1
CarbBurgandy What is that sentence suppose to mean? The words tend to look like English words, but they are thrown together randomly.
CarbBurgandy
“Military does not allow for curvature or the corialis effect.”
First of all, it’s Coriolis. If you’re going to make nonsensical claims, at least try to spell them correctly.
And the above sentence is completely irrelevant unless you specify the situation you’re talking about. WHEN and WHERE is the “military” not allowing for these effects, where you would expect them to – and just WHY would you expect them to?
bobm73 CarbBurgandy Considering that it is the military who flies the hurricane hunter airplanes into hurricanes to measure wind speed and pressure, they darn well better believe in the coriolis effect, otherwise how do they explain all that swirling around them? How does anyone explain the twisting of hurricanes, and tornados without the coriolis effect? Even Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz knew about the twisting of tornados.
TomTrevor bobm73 CarbBurgandy i’m sure toto figured it out too
and wich one was it the scarecrow or tin man that only wanted a brain? i bet he could figure it out with ease
soaringeagle TomTrevor bobm73 CarbBurgandy Heck I think they knew about the coriolis effect in Gone With The Wind.
soaringeagle TomTrevor bobm73 CarbBurgandy The scarecrow wanted a brain, but he knew a lot about weathe. He knew which way the winds were blowing, and that some winds were ill winds that brought fire with them, all he was really was missing was a diploma. Meaning that even a truck driver from down under could figure this stuff out if he really wanted to.
TomTrevor soaringeagle bobm73 CarbBurgandy back a number of years i had turned a crack hood into a very safe peaceful loving paradise with the help of a mentally handicapped guy named candyman, you could barely understand him when he talked, he was constantly writting but it looked like all circles and squigles, he was always punching in equations on a broken calculatior that didn’t even turn on
but he was the smartest guy in the hood, the only 1 smart enough to avoid drug and alcahol addiction
if i told him about this flat earth thing he would laugh his crazy laugh and say those people are crazy
then for months, even years he would tap me on the shoulder and say something like .. ‘member dose flat world people, man oh man they be crazy’ then laugh his maniacal laugh and go back to scribbling in his book
CarbBurgandy bullshit whos the “they ” that zsaid that why is it in all of the training manuals? you were lied to
You’re the one who is a dumbass. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt the world is not round, a sphere, or globe, whatever you want to call it.
That ship test where you see the hull disappear before the mast? That is a crock. People have done this test before with telescopes on the water and able to spot ships 50 miles a way?
Ya I know I know, refraction… Bla bla bla. Sorry pal, infrared doesn’t like. I can see ships over 100 miles away with infrared which is flat out impossible on a globe as the ships would be over 1000ft below eye level.
Sorry, checkmate, you lose.
Of course if you even ever bothered to look at NASA’s website for Robert Simmons (the guy who does earths pics), you’ll see that he even admits all the pics are composites derived from data. Absolutely NOTHING is real. That’s also how you know there are no satellites. Gps does not require satellites, it works perfectly fine off ground towers. Gps is Global Positioning System not global satellite system.
No you can’t see the ISS, it’s 400km in the air while a plane 7 miles in the air appears As a dot. Chris Cassidy already got busted for lying being on the ISS when he was actually in the United States doing the interview. The ISS you see in a telescope is a hologram dancing and glitching around the view.
Felix baumgatner jump was jump was another sloppy job on Nasas part. Earth rotating in one scene and stationary in the next. Also varying rotating speeds, no oceans seen on 40% of the planet. Finally the earth curving the wrong way on a jump.
I’m not going to say the earth is flat,
But what I will tell you is, that it is not round or a globe. You’d have to be absolutely stupid to think it is
CarbBurgandy
Sigh.
Most of your “objections” have already been addressed – and completely refuted – countless times already in this discussion. Have you read any of them? Can you satisfactorily answer ANY of the questions which have been raised regarding the “flat Earth” model?
The rest – well, I’m sorry, but the rest is simply impossible. No, GPS does NOT work via “ground towers;” if that were the case, it could not possibly work in the middle of the ocean, and I can tell you from personal experience that it DOES. I am also, coincidentally, an engineer who has worked with GPS systems, and I can also tell you unequivocally and again from direct experience that the systems ARE designed to work from a satellite-based system, and COULD NOT work otherwise.
That you claim that the ISS is a “hologram” simply tells me that you have no idea how holograms work. I really do NOT want you that my word for this, but I don’t really expect that you’re going to actually go learn more on this subject any time soon – so for now, I guess you’d have to take my word for it: it is NOT POSSIBLE that the ISS you see, either with the naked eye or through a telescope, is in any way a hologram or even a 2-D image. To create such an image would require a satellite at LEAST as large as the ISS is already, orbiting in approximately the same orbit!
And yes, OF COURSE all of the images you see are composites derived from data – what else WOULD they be? Are you under the impression that we should expect someone to be picking up film from these satellites, to be developed at the local PhotoMat? Do you realize that pretty much every photograph you see these days is from a “digital” camera, and thus can be transmitted, stored, etc., as “data”? Where did you think that technology originated? (Of course, there have been conventional “film” photographs taken in space – that’s what the astronauts of Mercury through Apollo and beyond have generally taken, until the widespread use of digital photography based on electronic image sensors.
And what do you think NASA had to do with the Baumgartner jump? That was a completely private effort, and the effect of the various cameras used has already been, again, extensively discussed here. And NONE of the motion seen in those images was due to the rotation of the Earth.
Shall I continue? The rest of what you wrote also has some very serious errors in it, but I’ll give you the chance to consider the above before going further.
CarbBurgandy I actually have no idea what these words, put together in the way you put them together mean. Until you get a better handle on English it isn’t worth talking to you.
CarbBurgandy what a moronic statement
no you can not see 1000 miles nobody can not even from 380,000 feet
all those you can see the ship againwith telescope..is a lie
refraction is real but only hppens on some days, you cannot see 50 miles every day only on rare days
satelites are real idiot..look up you can see them in the sky
the earth is huge and all near earth images have to be composite images, all “panoramic” images are compoosite images
the only non composite images that can show the earth in 1 simngle shiot have to be taken from the moon, or farther away
are you that dumb a hologramk? projected on what //how hows it projected all over the earth
planes do not appear as a di]ot and you do not see the iss itself you see only the difused reflected light
i already debunked that bunk about the space jump
the earth is a sphere you can plainly see it you cn prove it and you have to be stupid to deny it
wht do you think it is a cone a triangle a pyramid ..
its too bad you cant think about what you just said
soaringeagle CarbBurgandy Or panoramic images can be taken with a fisheye lens, but apparently fisheye lenses are fishy here and therefore illegal.
TomTrevor soaringeagle CarbBurgandy thats a wide angle shot
a panoramic is like a 180-360 degree shot
let me see if i can find 1 i shot
Austruth Do you you people ever do anything for yourselves? It is very hard to see what is happening in the video. So here is website where that part of the video came from.you guys could have looked it up yourselves. http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic
If you did you would see that all that is happening is the projection is changing.
Why do you assume wind patterns are suppose to be simple? If they were simple weather prediction would be simple too. In any event the coriolis effect is quite clear at least when you go to the website and don’t try to use the small video.
But other things affect weather besides the coriolis effect. one of the largest influence on weather is difference in temperature and that causes high and low pressure systems and these high and lows with the coriolis effect produce most of the circulation of weather systems.
And as part of getting my degree in Aeronautics, I took 3 classes in meteorology, so now it isn’t my lifes work, but yes I do know something about it.
TomTrevor Austruth Thanks for the Link Tom. If you actually take time to look at it, it makes a damn sight more sense on a globe Earth than a flat Earth. I only studied meteorology a little as part of my RYA poweboat certification, and touched on it a little at school and for my diving qualifications. But you can clearly see that the heaviest activity is over the oceans as we would expect and the shape of the activity is as we woulld expect around Antarctica only when viewed as a globe, not when viewed as a flat Earth.
You are right, this is a fantastic piece of evidence for a globe Earth.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth There is no reason at all why weather should spin like hurricanes or tornadoes do, or like it does in the video, even in the “flat earth view.” if the earth was not curved. Wind moves from high pressure to low pressure,and on flat non-spinning disk would move in a straight line from highs to lows. On a non-spinning disk the movement would not be perfect because of the difference in friction over water and land, and because of the interference of mountain ranges but it would be a heck of a lot straighter than seen in the azimuthal equidistant projection.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth By the way the video shows the view from the surface, but if you go to the website and up to say the 850 millibar level, where many clouds are, you will see the coriolis effect is much clearer. Again friction and different temperatures near the surface change the strength of the coriolis effect.
slymonster Austruth I shouldn’t have said that friction and temperature near the surface changes the coriolis effect. the coriolis effect is the same, what happens though is that friction and temperature changes and other effects are greater near the surface and these effects are in addition to the coriolis effect, the result is that surface winds are not as predictable as winds aloft.
Yeah I knew you’d turn into a weather man LOL
Austruth I never said I know everything, I do know the things i know. You don’t have to be a genius to know the world isn’t flat, you just have to be reasonably observant.
I am sorry it upsets you that I have an education that happens to relevant to the discussion we are having, You won’t find me on a neurosurgery website because I know nothing about it.
My degree in aeronautics included two classes in physics, two in calculus two in aerodynamics, an advanced navigation class. an aviation weather class ( which I include as a meteorology class) two other meteorology classes, electronics, a class in the physiology of flight, a class in computer programming in Fortran, aviation law, logic, philosophy, and several non-science non-aviation electives.
But i don’t claim I am genius. I was struggling a lot in the heavily math depended classes. But I was lucky, we had a fantastic aerodynamics teacher, who took it upon himself to teach us a systematic way to approach all math problems. That took me from struggling with the math in classes to doing very well with them. If I can learn this almost anyone can, I bet you could if you really wanted to, but it doesn’t appear that you want to learn.
Austruth its called being educated
something flat earthers lack
this is not complicated stuff i think it took me a couple weeks to learn all the meterology i know and that was only like 20 minutes a day or so..
soaringeagle Austruth Heck knowing the earth is curved isn’t complicated either. I have clarify something I said to Soarineagle It has been a long time since I flew, planes have changed, but the physics hasn’t. I am quite sure that all the planes I flew had artificial horizons, because the flight schools wanted them,but not all the planes were rated for IFR, because they lacked transponders.
However, in VFR conditions one would first trim the plane visually and then confirm it using the Rate of Climb Indicator and the altimeter, and not the artificial horizon as I stated.
TomTrevor soaringeagle Austruth a variometer is basicly an ultra sensitive and compensated rate of climb indicator, but instead of measuring rate of climb or decent, it measures the rate of climb of the airmass your in
let me see if i can recall the mechanics of it haha its been awhile, theres 2 pitot tubes 1 isolated from the ram airflow and 1 that is exposed to the ram airflow the 1 feeds into a chamber and the other a bellows within the chamber and it therefore measures the pressure changes and compensates for speed changes
something like that..its a real test of memory as i read it once for my written test and never thought about it again for .. damn 24 ish years
soaringeagle TomTrevor Austruth Yeah i when it has been over 30 years since I have have flown, things get forgotten, but if I was making things up I would just google them and I wouldn’t have forgotten a thing.
Beside this very tangential to the fact that DAMN IT ALL THE EARTH IS CURVED.
soaringeagle
Heck knowing the earth is curved isn’t complicated either. I have clarify something I said to you It has been a long time since I flew. Planes have changed, but the physics hasn’t. I am quite sure that all the planes I flew had artificial horizons, because the flight schools wanted them, but not all the planes were rated for IFR, because they lacked transponders.
However, in VFR conditions one would first trim the plane visually and then confirm it using the Rate of Climb Indicator and the altimeter, and not the artificial horizon as I stated, but if you had an artificial horizon you would still use it as a cross check.
Another thought I had on this silly notion that planes are constantly going down and you would feel it is that planes, but not gliders,are always getting lighter because they start with a full load of fuel. Keep gravity, airpressue, speed and angle of attack constant and reduce weight and the plane will gain altitude without a change in pitch.
TomTrevor soaringeagle they say that every 6 miles youd have to point the nose down or fly off into space i even had to report an airline pilot that made that claim
they dont think that ”down” is always relative to the center of the earth
so “level flight” is always curved with the earths curve
now you cant test this with a carpenters level on a ball because earths gravity is millions of times stronger then a balls gravity, but if you replace the bubble with a steel ball bearing, and put a powerful magnet in the center of the ball “level” would be level on every single side of the ball
soaringeagle TomTrevor Totally correct. But if I say so, I am either lying, stupid, and/or brainwashed, evidence be damned, i hope these people have never been and never will be on a jury.
TomTrevor soaringeagle it is simple logic
you guys are brilliant compared to me.. im smart but 99% self taught
and that does not include advanced math or physics
but i do know what makes sense, and what doesn’t
logic, common sense, reason, these are all you need to know truth from crackpot nonsense, you don’t need to be able to calculate every factor.. just think it through. what makes sense and what doesn’t
ofcourse in these arguments i greatly appreciate and respect those of you who know all the formulas and can show your work
i think my advantage (even though its wasted on flat earthers) is to be able to think things through and explain them on the level of someone who uses their fingers to do simple matth haha
but no matter how much i dumb down a point i am trying to make, no matter how much i simplify it.. they just refuse to even consider anything but their brainwashing.. the flat earth thing is very much like a cult
i’ve said this before, that the human mind is more my interest then physics.. not how they can think this..but..why they think this
it very much does come down to programming they seek out these videos watch 1 after another and become programmed
programming is very hard to break…trust me i met a woman who had the word “no’ beaten out of her vocabulary from age 8, she was 28 when i met her, had never said no to anyone.. even to a psychopath that made her promise to kill herself and her kids on command, let dozens of his friends rape her, and let him dismember her wit a chainsaw while still alive.. she could not say no
these flat earthers are just as programmed but willingly, they are physically (or mentally) incapable of allowing any thoughts that contradict the programming in..
it isnt that they think the earth is flat they believe it might be or anything like that.. it is the only thing thy know to be true (know in the sense that it is the only thing their minds will accept)
i spent 8 months, 18 hours a day trying to get that woman to simply type an n next to an o
she could not do it
i am willing to bet that it would be very hard to get a flat earther to type “the earth is round’
i’m not even saying to get them to believe it, but just to type the words
i can type the earth is flat.. i know its not its meanningless to type it
but i am pretty certain that many who are really deep into the flat earth programming cannot bring themselves to even type those words
TomTrevor Austruth exactly every pilot has to study meterology in order to fly
soaringeagle TomTrevor Austruth I don’t know why anyone would find it odd that every pilot would have to know some basic metrology, our lives depend on it, we have to understand weather at least as well as sailors, and better than truck drivers.
So all of us are trained in basic weather and how to read and interpret aviation weather maps, and reports. I just happened to be more interested in weather than some people are, and so having the opportunity to study meteorology in more depth I took advantage of it.
I will add that glider pilots have to understand weather better than airplane pilots. Glider pilots have to be able to find thermals and avoid down drafts, airplane pilots don’t care that much, we normally have power available to us if we are suddenly hit by a downdraft, guilder pilot can only trade of speed for altitude but they can quickly run out of both if hit by a downdraft at too low an altitude.
TomTrevor soaringeagle Austruth exactly and i am so good at it i can point at a cloud and say watch that cloud, in 45 minutes it will over develop and become a thunderstorm
must tiimes when its going to rain or storm i can predict about how long till it starts with about a 10 minute error margin
glider pilots have to be able to tell wich cumulous clouds are building, wich are mature wich are dissipating
and in the absence of clouds, know what surface features are likely to cause thermals or lift like quarries, large parking lots, ridges when the winds right..or shorelines and frontal lift (cold fronts lifting warm fronts)
not only do you have to see the signs of micro changes in weather..but feel it too
while there are narrow columns of lift called thermals, they are surrounded by wider areas of sink, the stronger the sink the stronger the thermals ..but you have to develop a feel for where to find them
your average tow to 3000 feet ends in a 20 minute flight
ofcourse most of my early flights ended in 20 minute flights
but once i got a feel for finding and centering thermals..if there were any thermals at all to be found i’d be up for 5 hours and only come down cause i had pissed off people on the ground waiting for me
i am always watching the weather, i love doing time lapse’s of weather paterns
i am 1 of the few people who looks forward to hurricanes and wild storms
i grew up racing sailboats so had to have some weather knowledge when i was like 8? maybe 10 took coast guard classes in meteorology and navigation when i was about 12
but learned way more when i was 23 studying for my glider pilots liscence
but ontop of all that, for like 30 some years almost every year id spend a month or so out in the wilderness high in the mountains at the mercy of the weather
i have seen weather that is so unusual
ran coast to coast just ahead of a storm that went the wrong way, east to west saw ball lightning .. i saw what looked like a demonic bat like dark ominouss cloud forming below the storm, i turned to the driver to point it out to them and when i looked back saw a massive tornado right where the bat like cloud had been
i sat in a valley watching tornado after tornado skip right over our heads, we saw them come up the ridge behind us, skip over us (you could feel a big pressure change) then see them touch down again on the other side of the valley
i love weather even scary weather ..i want to be out in it
while some people huddle under a umbrella miserable when theres the faintest mist in the air
you will find me head held high laughing and dancing in a terential downpour (in fact i do not own an umbrella and will never use 1 except as shade from extreme heat)
see what happens when you ask me to debunk weather hahaha you make me very happy and make me babble on and on about weather
soaringeagle TomTrevor Austruth I hardly want to tell you this because the guy from down under won’t believe it. But I grew up sailing too. My father was very good at figuring out weather, once we were losing a sunfish race and he took us about 1/2 a mile in the wrong direction, we ended up winning by several 100 yards. I asked him how he did it and he told me two things, one was he read the weather report and looked at the clouds and figured out that a wind shift was coming and second was “if you are in last place you might as well do something different.”
I have often out predicted the TV weathermen, because I bother to look outside while they mainly read charts and NWS reports.
Austruth I posted a link that shows the Earths curvature. Are you still saying you believe the Earth is flat?
All I will say is That I believe it is not the shape they say it is . Until space travel is cheap enough for me to see myself I will always be sceptical . I know what I see on the horizon . You guys keep twisting my observations but I know what the measurements are and how the distances work. A lot of these videos make Sense to me .
Austruth So the one piece of evidence you said you would except, you are now ignoring?
Do you know how that sounds?
You started off, many, many weeks ago, saying you were unsure. You now sound completely brainwashed.
What am I ignoring ? I have not changed 1 bit . My brainwashed head is still telling me it’s a globe but every time I look at the horizon and all the evidence tells me it flat . The balloon pictures earlier showed me flat so thanks for that . Don’t bother replying to this as I’ve heard all of your angles and spin for months . 2016 is the year of change
Austruth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_9cFTQg7NE This should help 🙂 2016 Brother! Praise Yahweh!
VictorTalha Austruth Why does the sun rise up from below the horizon, and sink back down below it, in all of these sequences? The table sequence shows exactly what you would see – from a viewpoint LOWER than the top of the table (or didn’t you notice that?). Yawn.
VictorTalha Austruth How on earth can you have video that claims to give a history of the round world without mentioning either Galileo or Newton.
VictorTalha Austruth Einstein’s theory rather than saying the earth is flat says the earth must be curved must be curved. The Reason astronauts know they what direction they a leveling out is because of what I told you before spaceships have inertial guidance systems, that use gyroscopes.
VictorTalha Austruth The Earth is only about 1.3 light seconds from the Moon, and is nowhere near massive enough to have any noticeable effect on the curvature of spacetime that would be noticeable in a picture from the moon.
Austruth And this time lapsed video will prove to You the Sun moves over us in circles – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRFU4V_RaCw
Amazing !!!
Austruth how is that…amazing it looks nothing like what you see with your eyes
its an advertisement for gopro and flat earthers are constantly saying thzat they will accept no evidence shot with a gopro
whats amazing is how easily your manipulated
do you ever see the sun shrink like that…nope
VictorTalha Austruth You see the Sun moving to the left or right in any of that? Me neither.
And note that the horizon curves – UPWARDS at the sides of the image. Indicating, of course, a distorting lens.
Yawn.
bobm73 VictorTalha Austruth I’m sorry I have no idea what this is suppose to prove.
VictorTalha Austruth I fail to see what either of these two videos prove. Except the second one, which uses a GoPro, which FE’ers are forever telling us can’t be trusted because of it’s ‘fish-eye’ lens, goes to show just how desperate the FE’ers are to cherry pick what they will and will not believe as video or photographic evidence.
In the first video, why does the guy use a table that is above ‘eye’ level and have the coin so close to the table if the sun is actually supposed to be higher than the vanishing point. The video is not just ‘out of scale’ but breaks your failed law of perspective too.
Can you guys not see how ridiculous these so-called proofs are, when they break the rules you have yourself made up?
It’s just pathetic and desperate.
Austruth The baloon pictures showed a definite curve. Why lie?
Austruth Funny thing is, though, you AREN’T even CLOSE to looking at “all the evidence” – if you were, you could’ve answered at least one of the many, many questions which have been raised regarding this so-called “flat Earth evidence.” But just keep your head buried in the sand, and keep believing what your masters are telling you. Good sheep.
slymonster Austruth sylmonster keep replying if you want to, the truth shall set even Austruth free.
Austruth We have not been saying it is a perfect sphere it isn’t, but it is closer to a sphere than it is to being flat.
Austruth And how do you explain the 1000’s of football fans who flew non-stop from Sao-Paulo and Buenos Aires to South Africa in 9 hours during the 2010 World Cup? Something that would be impossible for distances the FE model portrays?
Let me guess, all football fans are in on it too.
Austruth “That I believe it is not the shape they say it is.”
Just exactly who is this “they” you’re talking about?
bobm73 Austruth Oh you know the illuminati, the Rockefellers, NASA, George W.Bush and Putin.
TomTrevor bobm73 Austruth and satan don’t forget satan
after all wasn’t it satan that flattened out our ball
Austruth Find answers don’t require to be an expert. Just to do some researches on the internet — what you proved not being able to do.
Austruth To be honest, all you need is 18th century technology to disprove the Flat Earth model.
Using 18th century technology we KNOW that the Sun is much further away than the Moon. We KNOW that the stars are much, much further away than the Sun, and we KNOW that galaxies are much, much further away than the stars.
It doesn’t take a genius, it doesn’t take anything more than a $150 telescope to see this.
VictorTalha
around 1 minute – 8 sections of four = 33 sections (That’s some good math)
around 2 minutes – the iss is a funny shape, almost the same shape as the symbol of bathmet? wtf? It was sent up in rockets, there’s only so much you can do with engineering and long thin structures, and it looks like a sensible shape to me. How else could they have done it? (Smoke and mirrors)
around 3.5 minutes he claims to know what the ice wall looks like yet nobody is able to show a photograph of this.
around 4 minutes tells you to be aware what is fake and what is real? (No shit!)
around 4:15 -claims that we aren’t allowed to go to the antarctic yet a few seconds earlier showed a passengers on a ship photographing it.
around 6 minutes – totally ignores the fact that gravity exists.
Around 6:10 – claims planes fly by keeping even with the horizon. This is totally false. One instrument the pilot uses is an ‘ARTIFICIAL’ horizon. This is because pilots do NOT point their aircraft at the REAL horizon, if they did they would be descending. The horizon does in fact drop down the higher you go. So much so that in some planes, at altitude, the pilot can no longer see the horizon in level flight.
Do I have to watch the rest of it. Because this guy lost all credibility in the first few minutes.
At 12:44 there is nothing to debunk. He admits he doesn’t understand what he is looking at. That much is evident. Not understanding something is okay. It doesn’t make it untrue. I don’t understand women. I know they exist. I know they are real. I have one sat on the sofa with me right now. Oh, and it doesn’t make any more sense on a flat earth than on a globe earth.
slymonster VictorTalha gliders do use the horizons position on the canopy as a way of maintaining speed without referencing the air speed indicator too often, you check your speed, note where the horizon is on the canopy and keep it there , ofcourse you recheck and adjust often, its not like you mark it on the canopy, and keep it at that line, you just know where it should be ..about to keep a constant speed at that altitude
the diference is ifr vs vfr
ifr flight has an artificial horizon, vfr planes do not and do use the horizon as a reference point, but since thbe horizons curving away from them and they are following the curve it makes no diference
soaringeagle slymonster VictorTalha Thanks for the correction SoaringEagle 🙂
But of course you note the different heights the horizon appears at on the cockpit, again proving that the horizon is not always at eye level 😉
slymonster soaringeagle VictorTalha ofcourse
it is fractions of a degree since we generally fly between 3-6k 10k on a good day
but you are constantly checking against the air speed intdicator,the wind sound and the position of the horizon on the canopy
its just easier to keep your eye on the horizon keep it steady to maintain a relitivly constant speed
soaringeagle slymonster VictorTalha Every plane I ever flew including the Cessna 152 and the Piper Cherokee which were not IFR rated planes had an artificial horizon. I have only flown in a glider once, so I don’t know about them.
TomTrevor soaringeagle slymonster VictorTalha they have altimiter, variometer (a super sensitive altimiter thats corected for air speed diferences and only measures the rising or sinking air mass) compass air speed indicator and typicaly thats it, racing sailplanes have a simple flight computer to track task waypoints and final glide speeds and a “can i make it to the next point” calculator typically they might have 2 variometers a mechanical and a electronic
download “silent wings” demo and give it a try the demo is the exact plane i fly
slymonster VictorTalha If you do ever understand women, please let me know, I would like to understand them too.
LoL there is no super computer complex enough, nor a brain advanced enough to fathom the mysteries of a woman’s mind. I’d have better luck proving I own Planet Earth than explaining how a woman’s mind works! 🙂
VictorTalha nah women (the sane ones) are easy to understand
how anyone can think the earth is flat..that is impossible to understand
well… i’m not claiming that there are an abundance of sane women
most are a lil messed up in 1 way or another
but thats usually from exposure to a large number of messed up men (or women depending on orientation)
the psychology behind the flat earth fascinates me the most.. how people think and feel, their fears etc compared to flat earthers women are easy to understand
slymonster VictorTalha A student pilot might might point the nose at the horizon, but a well trained pilot would just use the horizon as reference point when leveling off. Once the plane appeared level he would trim it up. Trimming moves trim tabs which are tabs on the control surfaces that can be adjusted to keep the control surface relatively stable. Once it appeared that level flight was established the pilot would confirm level by referring to the artificial horizon and the altimeter and the turn and bank indicator. A well trimmed aircraft should maintain level flight with little or no input from the pilot, of course in turbulence this becomes much harder.
VictorTalha Debunk what? This nonsense about the global wind currents? Simple. First, whoever made this video doesn’t realize that he’s actually put in evidence which proves the flat Earth model is WRONG. There is no explanation given in this video for the fact that the circulation pattern of storm systems, high and low pressure centers, etc., runs in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. That could only happen on spinning, spherical Earth. Look up “Coriolis force” for the full explanation.
And note that his entire argument here is that what he’s seeing “makes no sense” to HIM – but he makes absolutely no effort to show exactly what he has a problem with, or what he would actually expect to see in the two cases (flat vs. spherical Earth) and most importantly WHY. The argument is basically “I don’t understand any of this, therefore the answer I think is right is right.”
He also completely ignores the severe distortions imposed on the graphical representation of this data when the view is switched into the polar projection. There is SO much irrational, unsupported, and totally nonsensical BS in this video that it would take a book to address it all.
bobm73 VictorTalha
the flat earth argument in a nutshell
i am uneducated, unintelligent, i don’t understand much at all
therefore everyone who knows more then me must be just trying to take advantage of my ignornce and trick me
that is the flat earth movement
back around the time it started to really take off, a saudi arabian cleric made a statement ‘”if the earths spinning and moving why can’t i feel it”
because he did not understand how people sense motion it made a whole lot of people who don’t understand how people sense motion start to question if we are moving or not
then the really really really stupid people asked ‘if we are spinning at 1000 mph why dont we splatter against the wall when we jump
or why arent the winds 1000 mph
why dont planes fly backwards
these people do not think.. they just do not understand and since they do not understand something it must be a lie
they might not understand how rain forms so might believe its created by the satanists or something
flat earthers are proud of being ignorant , but they are also insistant that the stupidest things they say are the right things
they are very strange breed indeed
it will make a fascinating psychological study someday
VictorTalha ok theres nothing to debunk
the guy that made this video is just an idiot, its called high and low pressure zones, its called temperature gradients, differential heating, and land features cause weather patterns, there is rhyme and reason for it but it changes day to day hour to hour its a complicated dynamic system
ok i’ll educate you
winds flow from high pressure to low pressure zones, the steeper the pressure gradient the stronger the winds now in the vid you do see some circular motions that are caused by the spinning of the earth called coriolis effect you also see heated air coming off the deserts . and flowing over mountains.
land masses cause “heat islnds” as do cities water the oposite then you have trade winds and jet streams wich are very much influenced by the earths spin but Are deflected north or south by pressure zones
its just weather..normal weather hear on earth its dynamic ever changing hard to predict because slight changes can alter entire patterns thats why meteroliogists tend to have a dozen computers running simulations around thye clock to try to predict what the most likely patterns will be
by the way when you turn on wind paterns, this is not something visible these are paterns that are measured by millions of weatther stations baloons airplanes taking readings aloft and in the case of precipitation doplar radar then modeled using computers ..basicly cgi
its a computer generated model of wind conditions based on millions of measurements around the world
if you know much about meterology, even basics just watching that for 30 seconds you can pick out the causes of many of the paterns
here in usa , the east coast often gets whats called “lake effect snow” artic winds coming down from canada picking up moisture over the great lakes cause the bigger snow storms, especialy just southb and east of the great lakes, l,ike buffalo new york that typicaly has 5-8 feet of snow by now
now if you look at the wind paterns, and the geography of those areas many of them re very typoical prevailing wingd paterns caused by the geography of the regions
high mountains bordering desserts with passes that the winds are funneled through, and accelerated, pushed up cooled ..etc etc
no 2 days will you see the exact same paterns but you will see over years a typical patern for an area emmerge
how do i debunk that? the guy hAs no clue at all about geography, meterology or anything
the entire flat earth thing is based on “i don’t understand what i am looking At so it must be something wrong with it’
try to research why things are the way they are injstead of assumming its a conspiracy
debunking this bunk is easy for anyone who went to high school
What is wrong with American education ?? Almost all Flat Earthers ( whopping 3400 members ) are Americans that subscribe to various meaningless and illogical conspiracy theories.
bj1jurac Well there is at least one very noisy person from down under who is on this very pages who believes this crap.
TomTrevor bj1jurac Are you from Australia ?? I am currently in Croatia but I live in Sydney
bj1jurac TomTrevor No I am as American as they get.
It is a simple trick to come up with the map that F.E. like to use, but it isn’t very hard to know what is going on if you have taken a navigation class that includes polar navigation, and here’s the math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system
Do the math and get back to me.
TomTrevor Flat Earthers use the map of United Nations which is Azimuthal projection of……..would you believe it………GLOBE.
bj1jurac TomTrevor I was going to post that, but for some reason decided against it. The UN map doesn’t have the 195 foot tall ice wall at the edge of the Earth. It has gigantic olive leaves in its place. I wanted to know if flat earthers believe there is a 195 foot ice wall or gigantic olive leaves at the edge of the earth.
TomTrevor bj1jurac i made a post about the un map here http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/the-un-map-as-proof-of-the-flat-earth-debunked/
to summerize, the un ‘map” was not meant to be a map at all, but a symbol of the united nations it was on the invite to the original summit conference to organize the formation of the un, and they realized it might become the permanent symbol for the un
it originally was centered not on the north pole but on either dc or nyc i forget where the conference was held, and…only included the northern hemisphere! at that time only nortern hemisphere nations were involved.
as the un grew and new nations joined, it was changed to be more neutral and more all inclusive so was centered on the north pole, and added the southern hemisphere.
it was never meant to be a map, or a representation of a flat earth, just a flat symbol that could be hung on a wall, put on a flag, and pins.
kinda weird that the un would plaster this great secret all over the world, hiding the ‘truth” in plane sight like that huh
flat earthers just want to believe that stupidity so badly they are willing to overlook the fact that the un symbol changed over the years …. and was made flat so it can fly from a flag pole
soaringeagle TomTrevor bj1jurac Where do you think that Australians are getting their olive oil from other than Antarctica ??
Happy New Year
TomTrevor bj1jurac Maybe that’s what the military have all been doing while waiting for the ‘invaders’, they have been doing a giant ice sculpture. Shaping the ice wall into huge, country sized, olive leaves.
Happy New Year all.
TomTrevor bj1jurac It is impossible to ascertain just what exactly this Flaties actually believe but based on all the nonsensical ” scientific ” proofs that they promote I have started to believe that this is just some kind of social experiment for psychiatry students to prove just how stupid some people are.
Happy New Year
bj1jurac TomTrevor as near as i can figure it out , it seems to be a massive panic attack brought on by the discovery by nasa of exoplanets and the possibility of life on other planets
one flat earther admitted that “if the earth is just 1 of billions of spinning balls in billions of galaxies in a massive universe then that would make us insignificant and unimportant”
so as a ego defense mechanism they create an enclosed universe , the entire universe existing in a dome created just for them, where there are no laws of physics and only the power of their ego’s makes the sun shine
in the flat world they are all important once again, in fact ..more important then us realists because they alone know this secret truth
but, that in no way contradicts the fact that it exposes just how stupid people can be
bj1jurac TomTrevor They have sure proven one thing. It is a total waste of time to argue with a twit brain.
But hey it is more fun than sitting on the couch eating Cheerios and getting fat.
Something has happened so that I can’t get back to any comments posted before today. Not a great lose, because I had enough of flat earthers, but i was enjoying the aviation comments.
Happy new Year everyone. So Flat Earthers, how do we know it is a new year?
TomTrevor the nazi zionist masonic satinic reptilians created a calendar to make you believe there are 365 days in a year so they could force you to go to school for x number of days and program you
its all a satanic plot
why do you think the new years fright after chritmass
its all designed to make christmass less important
oh damn it now i’m thinking like a flat earther
soaringeagle TomTrevor Yeah, well, happy New Year anyway. I tried to reply to a comment on the Flat Earth Debunked cite, but couldn’t. The comment was about the sunrise as seen from a plane, I don’t know how people can believe in sun rises and believe the world is flat too.
TomTrevor soaringeagle you are a member on there? you can comment on blogs as a guest but there are none yet except the welcome to the site blog the forums you have to sign up for
if you did and couldnt comment let me know what browser or device
it has worked flawlessly so far
i’d try clearing cache and cookies and try again
TomTrevor look at the un map or standard map of the world 1892 , if your just here for giggle I’m not going to reply again
toxicavenger TomTrevor yes
lets look at the un map
http://www.flatearthdebunked.com/forums/topic/the-un-map-as-proof-of-the-flat-earth-debunked/
the un map is not a map at all, but symbol made to put on pins, on flags and plaques
the un map usded to be centered on north america, either new york, or dc wherever they held the conference that formed the un
and it only included the northern hemisphere cause only the northern nations were involved
as it grew to be mmore global it was decidced that it was more diplomatic to center it on a nutral zone like..the north pole, and include the entire north and south hemo]ispheres
if you look at the un map yo0u realize it has nothing at all to do with the shape of the earth, but a symbol of global unity
debunked
toxicavenger TomTrevor and 1892 was a very long time ago
we learned to drive fly use electricity shit indoors shower more then twice a year brush our teeth split the atom go to space and a billion other things since then
oh you think they knew more back then when a pot to piss in was a sign of luxury and wealth? (where do you think ‘i cant afford a pot to piss in came from, in those days the paupers couldnt afford to piss in a pot like the wealthy did)
yea good 1 look to 1892 for advancements in knowledge
Happy New Year to all…maybe I shouldn’t say that to the flat-Earthers, as I have no idea a all what a “year” might possibly mean to you all. Happy New Calendar Day, maybe?
bobm73 most are christians who celebrate christmass wich has nothing to do with christ but was saturnalia, the celebration of the god saturn, they claim the saturn rocket was named after a satanic diety
thdey put up a christmass tree wich dates back to the yule log from yule tide and lights wich dates back to the feast of lanterns
and celebrate it right around the solstice
all pagan holidays
they don’t know what they believe in
in fact when the kids are old enough they tell them santa clause isn’t real but still say christmass was about jesuss birth
jesus, if there was such a creature was born in april, not december, however there was a santa clause (stanas klaus) saint nickolaus who was the patrant saint of marinors sorta a poseiden like charachter
he was known to put coins in the shoes of children that left them outside hiss door hense the stockings by the mantle
now the sliding down the chimney thing, that dates back to a shaman, mongolian i think that would slide down chimneys and leave gifts of psychoactive plants and fungi
mushrooms and the like
now heres another tidbit
easter is suposedly the celebration of jesus resurection
but it is celebrated on the exact same day as a goddess from 700 years bc that…get this, was of virgin birth, and, died and was resurrected.. i think she died and was ressurected each year on that day for a number of years but could be wrrong
i think even the name easter came from her but cant remember her name
if flat earthers knew the truth of what they think they believe they would go (more) insane
Happy Happy New YEAR, God Bless You with fortuitous favor and indelible prosperity in 2016!!!
Happy new year to all. I was a bit away since a few weeks, and I saw more flat earthers came. So maybe they’ll be able to answer those points that others couldn’t :
— How is it possible to join south africa from south america in a few hours with planes if they are opposed on a flat earth ?
— How do the sun and the moon hang and move in the sky ?
— If the earth is flat, why the sun or the moon aren’t ?
— What create seasons ?
— If the earth is flat and gravity don’t exist, on WHAT is laying the earth. A giant table ?
FLAT EARTHERS COME FROM THEIR SIDE AND GLOBE HEADS COME FROM THEIR VIEW — when you label yourself one or the other you assume the frame of mind and then after you use the formulas given to come up and fit the frames assumed –
If you come from a third person view then you can actually see the evidence without prejudice —
Globe heads to me zombie/robotic like replies and responses almost as if they are pre-programmed and void of questioning the authorities who by the way have discredited their own views yet globe heads ignore the lies which seems to me — they don’t mind being controlled it’s easier I guess to live like that
Blabber So your logic is “if they all say the samething it can’t be right?” Wouldn’t it be more logical if we all said the same thing because it is right. Furthermore why don’t he flat earthers ever answer any questions?
TomTrevor Blabber never mind answering questions why wont any of them go to antartica and see this wall or dome
or look through a telescope
they do not want the truth they want the lie and they flat out refuse to do what it takes to know the truth even if its as simple as standing on a beach and trying to sea the other side of the ocean
soaringeagle TomTrevor Blabber Well, the movie they posted said “they” won’t allow people to go to antarctica.
TomTrevor soaringeagle Blabber they…being penguins? nerdy scientists? krill? snowflakes? i think if flat earthers wanted the ruth badly enough they would get around the army of penguins
antartica is roughly the size of north america
with a summertime population of 1 block of new york city winter population 1/2 that
2 constables
2 post office workers
1 gardener
the rest scientists and support staff never more then 5,000 for the entire continent most on the peninsula
as a comparison, yellowstone might have 10-20 thousand visitors a day and is 1/1000th the size, and if you go off the beaten path you can not see a single person for weeks or longer and can even find parts that have not had a single person there for decades
if a flat earther wanted to go to antartica they could spend 5 years wandering without seeing a single person if they just avoided 5 or 6 areas where research is being done
they are just simply scared off losing the delusion
Blabber nobody calls themselves globe heads flat earthers call themselves flat earthers people who know the earth is round are just people, the earth is round that is undeniably true
we are just sane, inteligent educated people nothing more
now flat earthers they always respond with the same rediculous nonsense that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. they discredit themselves by claiming everything is a satanic or zionist or nmasonic plot
and they deny the existence of efvery law of physics
Blabber “If you come from a third person view then you can actually see the evidence without prejudice.”
Precisely. That would be the scientific approach – look at the evidence FIRST, then create a model which best explains ALL of the evidence. No cherry-picking, no ignoring questions just because they’re uncomfortable, and definitely no ignoring any model solely because it doesn’t match what you currently believe.
Unfortunately, there’s no sign at all that you yourself are doing this. You refer to “globe heads” and “zombie like responses” and whether or not someone is “questioning the authorities” – none of which have the SLIGHTEST thing to do with the actual EVIDENCE. My point here all along – if you’ll bother to actually read all the comments – has been that NEITHER SIDE should be simply listening to their respective “authorities.” The evidence is there, and you can conduct all of the experiments, measurements, and calculations FOR YOURSELF. I’ve actually done enough of that that I KNOW which model is correct; I do not NEED to be told by anyone. Have you done this? If so – let’s see your evidence. Not just a link to someone else’s web site or YouTube video; I want to see YOUR evidence.
Or are you just another sheep?
I have been scrolling down and cant believe what i read i did not find one comment from a person supporting a flat earth theory,just an incredible amount of hostility.scoffing and self rightousness..look at yourselves it seems that if people put a theory forward that you dont agree with you simply respond with rudeness insults and scoffing and you leave no room for constructive debate yet reassure yourselves you are clever because you have never questioned anything in depth.Hang your heads in shame the biggest form of ignorance is ones own blind faith
mattj1971 I am not sure who you are referring to, whether you think the flat earthers are being disrespectful, or if the reasonable observant are being disrespectful.
There are many many comments from flat earthers, and the comments from those of us who are reasonably observant have been very respectful. However, it is extremely frustrating to be told things that are flat out wrong, or to be told that our observations don’t count, but the flat earthers observations must be accepted without question. Scroll a bit farther and you will see at least one flat earther out right swear at us,and even so the response is based on science and not a personal attack, even if we might have been rude on occasion, the fact is the Earth is curved.
Yes i did scroll down further and found some so i do stand corrected on that i was just annoyed that some people dont realise that an open exchange of ideas however far out should not be met with rudeness or playground rhetoric i feel the debate is very interesting and if looked at from a personal point of view by which i mean what the individual can see or prove etc without the dependence on anothers theory or pictures there are some aspects which do raise questions
mattj1971 go on youtube look at every flat earth video comments section
you dare say something logical and flat earthers start flinging insults
i had to report 1 that after everytime i made a valid point he would rant and rave then type “kill shil kill shill kill shill” over and over..in every single post
i had many call me all sorts of names
i have ofcourse called them idiots and morons at times but what can you do when they say ” your so idiotic if you actually think space exists” or “how can the moon cause tides when the moon is a hologram”
they say such stupid things all the time it is hard to not point out how dumb it is
i do try very very hard to engage them in intelligent debate
but they flat out refuse to discuss it on that level i often cannot get them to even say 1 single sentence that makes sense
how do you have a respectful conversation with someone who claims the stars are painted on a dome and all satellites are just high altitude solar powered drones with cartoon drawings of satellites taped to them
the things they say often make it completely impossible to not call them idiots
i feel bad about it everytime i do, mostly i feel bad for those who are mentally handicapped and can’t help having low intelligence because flat earthers deliberately choose to repeat things that make no sense at all
there is absolutely no intelligent argument for a flat earth.. there are deliberately misleading and manipulative arguments designed to make you question what you know is true, and distrust your own knowledge .. and gthe acheivements of every scientist in history
soaringeagle So true.
mattj1971 how can you have posts in support of a flat earth “theory” when it has nothing in common with a theory at all, it is just a collection of impossibilities, lies, delusions, manipulations, outright fraudulant statements and insane ramblings
there is nothing intelligent you can use in support of something that makes absolutely no sense, has been proven wrong over and over, and is completely impossible by all the laws of physics and nature
This site has 4-5 globe shill know it alls . They are experts in photography , astrology . Weather . There is two pilots as well amongst them . All speak shit . They have overtaken this site . Not with it
Austruth In your opinion they might ‘speak shit’ but they talk about facts, general observation and logic. You were the one asking for a photograph of the curve without the use of a ‘fish-eye’ lens and you have been shown that. Yet you still will not accept science. You have been given ways you can measure things yourself, yet choose to ignore them, stating simply that you only believe what you can see yourself.
Just because you choose to ignore those that clearly know more than you, does not mean they are wrong.
You state things you have heard on YouTube videos and throw out the collective knowledge of 1000’s of scientists over the centuries.
This is what sets us apart. The ability of the human race to record knowledge, and pass it down to the next generation is what keeps that truck running under your ass. It is what has made the internet possible. It is what has made air-conditioning and refrigeration possible, it’s what keeps your BBQ burning and your electricity supply from burning your house down.
Without the likes of Einstein we would not have GPS. Without the likes of Fleming we wouldn’t have penicillin. Without the likes of the Wright Brothers we wouldn’t have trans-continental flights.
You can mock science and education all you like, but without it we would still be living in caves and wiping our asses on leaves.
Austruth Yeah, that’s a real problem, when people who actually know something about the subjects you’re trying to BS about show up. Kind of spoils your whole day. I mean, just when you post a link to some video about what a supposed pilot is supposed to say, an actual pilot shows up and tells you otherwise. Or someone who knows something about physics, or astronomy, or whatever. Bummer.
But here’s what really strikes me as weird. Have you noticed that the ONLY thing we ever get from the flat-Earth side is secondhand (at best) “information,” hearsay, and the like? We get someone who posts a link to a video that someone ELSE made, and in that video we hear about yet ANOTHER person who claims to be an airline pilot or former NASA employee or whatever. We never, EVER see someone showing up here who actually IS an airline pilot, or former NASA employee, or whatever, and who is saying “yes, it’s flat, and here’s how I know…” Kind of makes you wonder why that is, doesn’t it?
And notice also that it’s the flat-Earth brigade who basically asks everyone to take their word for it. They don’t, however, post any actual reasons or evidence or calculations or anything like that. Instead, we get what amounts to “well, *I* don’t understand how this could be so on a round Earth, therefore it’s flat!” Doesn’t really sound like much of a reason, now does it? On the other hand, you’ve been told by many people (including myself) that you don’t HAVE to take anyone’s word for it regarding the round Earth; you can, and SHOULD, run the experiments and the calculations for yourself. And yet no one seems to want to do that. Doesn’t that make you wonder why not? Do you think they might be worried what they might find out if they actually DID do the work for themselves?
And really, if anyone here IS one of these “4-5 globe shill know it alls” that you talk about – really, all you would have to do is to point out where anything they’ve said is wrong, and actually SHOW why it is wrong. Why doesn’t THAT ever happen, either?
Does seem to add up to something, doesn’t it?
bobm73 Austruth Oh yeah it does, because um, well um, the earth is flat, so there.
bobm73 Austruth here is the simplest experiment i could possibly think of to explain what we see on a round earth that makes flat earthers think its flat
and although i proposed that over 200 flat earthers try this extremely simple experiment , not 1 ever has
1 find the largest ball you can find and 2 straight sticks
2 attach the 1 stick sticking out verticly from the ball surface , lets call this stick your eye level
3 hold the 2nd stick very close to the balls surface on the vertical stick, so it touches the ball, now spin it in a 360 degree arc (you can also use chalk string to mark the ball)
4 note that from the vertical sticks perspective the circle it drew around it appears as a flat line but where the line of sight stick touched the ball was very close to the vertical
5 move the line of sight stick up just a tiny bit,, about 2 or 3 mm if you are using a rather large ball thats about as high as the highest mountain, or an airplane, repeat the spin around, you still have a “flat horizon” side to side, but the point where the stick touches the ball is now farther awayy
6 repeat at multiple heights remembering that on a very large ball 2 inches would be low earth orbit,,about i’m sure 1 of these math guys can tell you exact sizes but id guess a room sized ball like 20-40 feet across 2 inches would be orbit..maybe 4 or 5
7 note that the angle of the eyed line to horizon does not change very perceptibly till your way the hell up there and the circle the line of sight draws does not appear curved till you are well above orbit
its a simple experiment that shows why you cant see any side to side curve, but absolutely can see farther from higher up
try the exact same thing on a flat surface and the line of sight stick always touches at the end of the stick ..moving closer, not farther away as you move higher
because on a flat earth, your line of sight would be the entire planet ..on a completely clear day you would only be limited by visibility conditions
preschoolers can do this experiment with ease, and understand the results
so why is it i cannot get a single flat earther to even try it
soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth can you explain how the earths oceans don’t spiral into outer space and maybe even how they curve ?. also how long does a swimming pool have to be before you can see the curve in the water ?
toxicavenger soaringeagle bobm73 Austruth so simple
ok you weigh 150 pounds at the equator, you weigh 1/4 pound less at the poles, the spin is very very very slow
go ahead spin a bike wheel so fast it takes 24 hours to rotate once , then spi9t on it and see if that spit goes flying off
the outward force is miniscule compared to the injward force of gravity
now why is the wsater curved? think a momment
every single thing, including you, has a center of gravity
a short person has a low center of gravity while a taller persons is higher when you are tackling someone trying to knock them off thier feet you want your center of gravity lower then theirs
now the earths center of gravity is in the center of the earth..no big surprise there it is the center of mass after all
gravity pulls everything towards the center of gravity
so the surface of the water is pulled towards that center “level” is relative to the pull towards the center
the water remains level, and curved at the same time
take a yoyo on a string spin it around your head.
your hand is the center of gravity pulling the yoyo towards it the arc it forms is a curve..right?
thats an oposiite force but just trying to help you visualize how a force towards the center causes a curve
now as far as the pool question goes
it depends on what you mean by ‘see” if you had extremely accurate sensative instruments that could measure the tiniest variations ..like thousandths of a micron
you could see a curve in a bathtub
the curve is in all water everywhere that is subjected to gravity
but it takes miles to vary inches
soaringeagle toxicavenger bobm73 Austruth I have been waiting for a flat earther who admits the existence of gravity to answer this question, but I’ll try it any way.
Any guy who has ever watched their stream of pee from above the toilet should have observed that water in fact does curve. Don’t believe me look the next time you pee over toilet or outside, many urinals are too close to see this well.
If the earth was not curved the stream of pee would have a horizontal component which is your bladder forcing it out and a vertical component forcing it down so it would follow a diagonal straight line down, but observation shows it does not follow that path.
Don’t like experiments with body fluids? Then take a hose and point it at about 20 degrees to 60 degrees up and observe the path the water takes. It is always curved.
Go to an old fashioned water fountain the the type that had a some sreem that you had to suck hard from. have a friend press and hold the button, and look a the the path the water takes from the side, see and sharp angles?
It is raining here I can tell you the top of the raindrops are not flat, and if you can show me a flat top drop of water you are doing well, look for yourselves.
soaringeagle toxicavenger bobm73 Austruth
soaringeagle toxicavenger bobm73 Austruth While this one isn’t from the side it is the type of fountain I meant. I remember being like these kids in Central Park New York, I am about their age, I remember being very anxious to get my turn to have a drink, while waiting I would move around to the side and I noticed how the water would go up and down in an ark, at that age I couldn’t figure out what could make it do that now I know that it is the fact that the earth is curved and gravity pulls toward the center of the earth.
This could be loss of momentum if the source of propulsion or force necessary was infinite then gravity would play no part in the projection of the fluid…can you explain gravity and its effect?
Austruth I responded to you hateful nonsense, but my response has disappeared. I know that the sun is almost over your head down under, but it is getting late here and so i will try to post my response to you tomorrow.
Austruth You have implied and really basically outright stated that you don’t believe my resume. For some reason you find it amazing that someone with a BS in aeronautics could know the wide variety of things I know, even though the things I say I know are basically things that anyone who had the goal of being an airline pilot would tend to learn over time anyway.
I just have a BS, but some of my teachers were PHDs, they had a far more complete knowledge. I am not posting stuff with identifiable information such as my 1981 flight instructors rating. However you piss me off by disbelieving my personal story while insisting that your story be fully believed. I don’t give a crap if you ever learn that the Earth is curved, you can live out the rest of you miserable days in ignorant bliss, or you can learn something, I really don’t care.
But don’t call me a liar, which what you actually are doing by disbelieving my personal story. I have mentioned that one reason I became interested in weather is because I grew up sailing, since there is no identifiable information here is photo of the trophies from sunfish racing I won as an individual or with my brother or with my father, my brother has others that he won as in an individual. Every word I have posted about my life is true. I have made a few mistakes when it comes to the science , but I have corrected them as soon as realized they were wrong. You might think I am a know it all, but it is better than being a know nothing.
TomTrevor Austruth
Sailing is something I would like to try. I have helped crew a few large yachts but really don’t have the experience to sail anywhere near solo, nor do I have the time to learn at the moment. I have my RYA powerboat licence, which I gained in order to be allowed to take the club’s RIB out on diving trips.
It may come as a surprise to certain people, Austruth, but when studying for any sort of engineering degree you do indeed learn a lot about a lot of subjects, especially different aspects of physics and math, before you specialise in your chosen field, it’s part of the course. A lot of what you learn may not be useful in your chosen career, but nothing should be discarded or ignored. Everything is relevant to an engineer at some point. Engineering, like I eluded to yesterday, keeps your truck running under your ass, keeps your home warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It’s what designs better BBQ’s and improves on Charcoal production to keep it hot. It’s what is used in data centres to stop the equipment over-heating, and so keeping the internet and the banks working. It’s engineers who design cameras and lenses, so they know a thing or two about perspective, optics and the behaviour of light.
Is it any wonder then that to an engineer, the idea of the Earth being flat is just nonsense? We know it is not. We can see that it is not. We are able to explain our observation which show it is not, and we can debunk the so-called ‘evidence’ that points to it being flat.
This is not something we have accepted because it was taught us in school. Our jobs often rely on us using the same math, the same physics, we know the math and physics work.
We are not ‘know-it-alls’ but we are occasionally ‘know better than you’s’.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth Exactly and precisely well said slymonster. As pilots we rely on engineers there are a few pilots who could build a plane , but very few, and none who don’t understand engineering.
In my class there were people who went on become pilots, but others became air traffic controllers,aircraft maintenance people, others went on to be managers at airports, or worked at flight schools, I know three women who were great pilots, one even won a precision landing contest, but they went on to be flight attendants, back then they prefered to be called stewardesses. One woman was very good at math and my calculus teacher got her a job at an engineering firm before she had graduated. Some joined the military, I know one guy who wanted to be a flight surgeon. One reason people go to college is to learn where their skills lie, so school that has a well rounded education is a plus. I wanted to go to a School in in Florida that specialized in training pilots, but my father wouldn’t let me, because it didn’t offer a general enough education.
I went to Dowling College On Long Island. The school has explained and now has a building right at the airport, the major has changed since I was there, but scroll down and look at the 80 credit requirements and tell me why it would isn’t believable that I could have have the knowledge I say I do.
http://www.dowling.edu/academics/undergraduate-studies/bs-aerospace-systems-technology/?menu=menu-item-27110
Austruth sorry but the url does say “smmarterthenthat” it is not taken over but created for people who are smart enough to know a few things
Austruth I asked, and of course you didn’t answer. So again why does it seem odd to you that a pilot would know about weather? In fact pilots are required to know about weather. Why does it seem odd to you that a flight instructor would know more about weather than a student pilot or private pilot?
The amount of weather knowledge that is required to debunk that part of the video is really very little. You should ask yourself why even in the flat earth view do the wind currents spin, what could possible make them do that on a flat non-spinning globe. Ok have I done something complex here, that requires a lot of weather knowledge? No I asked a question. See I am not even providing an answer. I am not sure a asking questions makes me a know it all. Even in the flat earth model the winds spin, why?
Then I ask another question, why do winds blow at all? Now this one I will answer, but gush it doesn’t take knowing everything or a lot about weather to know this winds travel for high to lows, I think you could know that or you could ask your local weather man, many tv stations in the US anyway have website where they answer weather questions. it isn’t complex.
Now the reason winds move from highs to lows is because that is the way fluid dynamics works and you can learn that in a physics class, but you don’t need to know why to learn that winds do move from high to low.
So then it is just a matter of combining the two questions. Why do winds curve if they move from high to low, why would they curve at all on a non spinning disk? There go answer those questions and you won’t be a know it all, but you will be a know something.
I’ll help you out with an easy experiment. A few years ago this would have been a very easy experiment, it is bit harder now. All you need is a spinning disk, like a record player, and a marble. Finding the record player will be the hardest part. Start with the record player not spinning and shoot the marble from the center of the record to the edge in a nice straight line, if you want draw lines on the record from the center to edge the so you are sure what a straight line is. then turn on the record at a slow speed so it is easier to see. now shoot the marble. The marble will follow the lines you drew before. but the lines have spun around relative to your position outside and above the record. From The perspective of an ant on the record the marble followed a straight line, from the perspective of you above and off the record it followed a curved line. This is known as the coriolis effect.
Austruth I’m so naive I still hope you could answer :
— How is it possible to join south africa from south america in a few hours with planes if they are opposed on a flat earth ?
— How do the sun and the moon hang and move in the sky ?
— If the earth is flat, why the sun or the moon aren’t ?
— What create seasons ?
— If the earth is flat and gravity don’t exist, on WHAT is laying the earth. A giant table ?
You’re the one who is a dumbass. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt the world is not round, a sphere, or globe, whatever you want to call it.
That ship test where you see the hull disappear before the mast? That is a crock. People have done this test before with telescopes on the water and able to spot ships 50 miles a way?
Ya I know I know, refraction… Bla bla bla. Sorry pal, infrared doesn’t like. I can see ships over 100 miles away with infrared which is flat out impossible on a globe as the ships would be over 1000ft below eye level.
Sorry, checkmate, you lose.
Of course if you even ever bothered to look at NASA’s website for Robert Simmons (the guy who does earths pics), you’ll see that he even admits all the pics are composites derived from data. Absolutely NOTHING is real. That’s also how you know there are no satellites. Gps does not require satellites, it works perfectly fine off ground towers. Gps is Global Positioning System not global satellite system.
No you can’t see the ISS, it’s 400km in the air while a plane 7 miles in the air appears As a dot. Chris Cassidy already got busted for lying being on the ISS when he was actually in the United States doing the interview. The ISS you see in a telescope is a hologram dancing and glitching around the view.
Felix baumgatner jump was jump was another sloppy job on Nasas part. Earth rotating in one scene and stationary in the next. Also varying rotating speeds, no oceans seen on 40% of the planet. Finally the earth curving the wrong way on a jump.
I’m not going to say the earth is flat,
But what I will tell you is, that it is not round or a globe. You’d have to be absolutely stupid to think it is
CarbBurgandy Do you have any proof of being able to see ships a 100 miles away with infra-red? Because I can’t even see France when it is closer than that and a damn site bigger than a ship. I think you are either mistaken or just lying.
And yes, NASA images of Earth are composite, all digital photographs are. Digital cameras work much like the human eye, capturing different wavelengths of light on different parts of the sensor, and piecing them all together as one picture. Although satellites send the raw data to Earth where the ‘pictures’ are then pieced together from the wavelengths they are interested for that particular picture. Which is also why on some pictures you cannot see clouds as well as on others, or why the colours can vary so much.
They don’t use celluloid film and send someone up to the satellite every day and then off to the chemist to get the negatives developed.
You really need to understand what the word composite means in the particular situation it is being used.
And what’s this, a plane 7 miles in the air is just a dot but you can see a ship 100 miles away? Would that not be a huge contradiction right there? And we are the ones who are stupid right?
slymonster CarbBurgandy This picture clearly shows the curve of the Earth and was taken with a film camera on Gemini 4 and shows Edward White it was taken with a film camera. according to Wikepedia a 70-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad but clearly a film camera.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_4#/media/File:White_Floats_out_the_Open_Hatch_-_GPN-2000-001407.jpg
slymonster CarbBurgandy Now Edward White died in Apollo one, so go ahead Carb and say that Edward White is liar, but when you do, don’t tell me, tell his family and tell them to their faces. Have the guts to tell the families of dead astronauts that their family members were liars, go on.
Not so easy is it when you know that making things up will really hurt people, not just piss off people on the internet but hurt real people.
TomTrevor slymonster CarbBurgandy just did some homework and learned that his widow betty and his son maintain that he was killed by sabotage . I don’t know what if he was ? I would listen to them before the media anyday
CarbBurgandy Not flat, but not round. Okay. What is it ? A cube ?
welcome to brainwashing at its best kids
Hi there firstly i am entitled to form any opinion i wish given that im not sure what i think on some subjects…the jury is out so to speak.The one question that is baffling me is the water level and math involved for curvature as it does pose a question.thats just keeping it fairly simple as there are a lot of people claiming things from both points of view on here that are not based on their own personal findings.
mattj1971 How do you know these things are not based on their personal findings? I myself have measured the angle of the horizon many times, it used to be a very simple way of determining what altitude you had hiked to. It could be used anywhere you could see the ocean or when you could see an object that you knew the height above sea level of. So I KNOW from my own personal experience that the horizon is almost NEVER at eye level. Of course now it is much easier to use a 3d gps fix to find your altitude and being honest, probably a little more accurate too.
I also know that the sun is much further than the moon from using telescopes.
I also know I can see further out to sea when I gain altitude, again, from my own experience.
I also know that once something has gone below the horizon, no amount of optics will bring it back into view. Light simply does not behave like this.
All of these things can be seen by anyone without spending huge amounts of time or money and using 18th century technology. But these go against what the FE’ers claim.
Sorry im not sure what point you are making you say firstly you measured the angle of the horizon and then im not sure of your point?
And you state you can see further the higher up you go???im not disagreeing and please dont box me in as coming from a certain view point im inquisitive and certainly dont profess to have all the answers
mattj1971 For some reason the FE’ers state that the horizon is always at eye level. They have to state this as it goes hand in hand with the Earth being flat. However, this is not the case. The higher you go the lower the horizon. The angle to the horizon should always be 90 degrees to the perpendicular if it was always at eye level. Yet, the higher you go, the angle changes, it certainly does not stay at eye level. You can measure it yourself using a large cardboard protractor and a bit of sting with a weight on. Just line up the straight edge of the protractor between your eye and the horizon and let your plumb bob show you what angle the horizon is at. Or use a spirit level app on your smartphone, or use a sextant. Whatever way you use you will see a marked difference at altitude.
As for seeing further with altitude, yes, this can be seen very easily. Most notably three weeks ago while on vacation in Tenerife. From the beach at Playa de Las Americas, 2 other islands can be seen ON the horizon. By travelling inland, further from the islands and climbing in altitude to a couple of thousand metres, three islands can be seen. The horizon is also notably beyond the nearest of the islands and the bottom of the island can clearly be seen, which it couldn’t be before. It is fairly obvious as there is a huge, white port wall that comes into view. At the beach it was hidden by the curvature.
Of course this is an extreme I cannot see every day.
However, from where I live, just across the Solent from the Isle of White, I can see the effect of the curvature. Ryde is approximately 4 miles from the beach. When I am sat on the beach I cannot see the Ryde jetty, it is hidden by the curvature. When stood on the boardwalk, only a few metres higher, the jetty can be seen. as it is no longer hidden by the curve. I cannot still see the needles though as they are quite a bit further away. If I then take the ferry over to Gosport and climb the Spinnaker tower up to one of the observation decks, not only can I see the needles, a distance of just over 20 miles, but even further.
Sorry i dont agree with the spirit level theory you have to be at eye level with the level and the ovject you are levelling you cant do this by being up from it.So i dont get the being higher bit of course you can see further being higher up .I cant comment on what you can see near isle of wight..though i do the same thing where i live on isle of sheppey and the distance i can see out and the width i can see across(and i have sailed here a lot)i should see some curvature but it is dead level..i have also watched ships through binoculars for miles and not seen them go over any curve
mattj1971 My point is that the FE’ers say that the horizon is always at eye level. So looking down the length of a spirit level at the horizon should show it as being level. It doesn’t. That’s my point. The horizon IS NOT at eye level.
Wrong again sly . I have and Matt has seen the horizon at eye level which is why he is qestioning things
Austruth Without measuring the angle of the horizon, how do you know it was at eye level? Even the most experienced builders use laser levels, spirit level, water levels.
This is the point, you NEED to measure things. Just stating that something looked at eye level is not at all accurate.
Ok if you dont call it horizon for a moment lets say point of reference you do need it at eye level in order to use a spirit level…if you were putting a shelf up say 7ft then you would use steps to bring your eyes level with the point of reference and your level it in no way diminishes the true objective of the experiment..you are correct the horizon is not always at eye level but you do need to get yourself in position to see it at that
mattj1971 I should also add that while sat on the beach and unable to see Ryde jetty, I can see the hill behind it, which is obviously further away.
Slymonster was sitting on a beach and couldn’t see 4 miles to the other side due to waves . How is it that I can sit on a beach and see the bottom of a fishing boat 7 miles away . Curve 32 feet . These guys are full of shit . I don’t anwser there bullshit Q,s anymore . It’s the same crap every day and they will do it to and every person that gets on here and asks a question . If you thought the earth was round and knew it to be so would you post comments on here everyday for 8 months . I know I wouldn’t waist my time but these guys give the longest answers and most of which is just bullshit . Ships going over the horizon ha ha ha . NO THEY DONT!!!
Austruth The difference being that you were guessing at 7 miles and were probably stood up. I know that Ryde is 4 miles from the beach because I have access to a map and both the beach and Ryde are geographically fixed.
What is it you are having a problem with here?
How can I see anchor lights from ships in the channel and not see their hulls?
It’s only bs if you fail to even try to understand.
Wrong again sly . I was 2 ft off the water and used your beloved google maps for the distance .
Austruth You used Google maps to measure the distance from you to a ship? Now I know you are full of it.
The ferry left the harbour . The harbour is 7 miles away .
Austruth And how do you know you were looking at the bottom of the boat, and that the bottom of the boat wasn’t obscured by the curvature, or even by waves? Did you also know how low the boat was sat in the water that day?
Ya see Matt . This is the sought of question I cop . What a douchbag LOL
Austruth That was a perfectly sensible question. What was wrong with it? You are obviously not looking at the bottom of the boat, but are claiming to look at the waterline. How can you tell from 7 miles away whether you were actually looking at the waterline and not at water a few miles in front?
Heard of a telescope .
Austruth I have. But that has nothing to do with what I asked.
slymonster Austruth Why would you do that? Google uses a curved model of the Earth so how could it be a n accurate measurement of the flat earth as you claim to believe.
Austruth Why do you come back every day and just scream bs?
Austruth Rake a look at this image and tell me that ships don’t go over the horizon:
http://www.pbase.com/ianfulton/image/143881543
slymonster Austruth your playing a little game aren’t you ? walking around on a ball is equivalent to walking around in a bubble , you are not taking in any information , just fighting it . your in a big melted puddle you don’t like it , tough neither do i
Austruth What about this image of them sailing over the horizon:
http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/hull-down-03.png
Austruth Maybe the last image on this page will persuade you:
http://blogs.reuters.com/photographers-blog/2012/04/16/a-night-to-remember/
The film would be better . That could be a single shot with the swell covering the boat
Maybe this will pursuade you. http://youtu.be/zEqDbsPUgH8 . Jeran says this ship is 11 miles away
Austruth ‘Jeran says it is 11 miles away’ and I am supposed to take his word for it? Okay, lets say it’s 11 miles away. Where’s the red anti-fouling paint that you see on the bottom of the hulls? My guess, you are not looking at the wareline at all. In fact I see no evidence that I am watching the waterline. No wake, no anti-fouling paint.
slymonster Austruth Once again this guy proved there is a curvature.
Mmmm you say at the beginning you use the water to determine your altitude.You use the water as it finds its natural level so even at altitude this level is considered correct and true you could not get a correct reading if this was curved.Maybe i am reading it wrongly but you cannot say you take a reading from something as you trust it to be true for straightnes whilst trying to say it is also curved?
mattj1971 I think you misunderstand. You can use a right angled triangle to calculate the triangle, taking the centre of the Earth to your height as the hypotenuse the centre of the earth to the horizon as the longer side of the other two and the angle to the horizon as your largest of the two non-right angled angles. The angle from the shorter of the lines coming from the centre of the earth to the horizon then would form a 90 degree angle when looking at it from your viewpoint.
This page explains it much better than I can:
http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/4690/determine-angle-down-to-horizon-from-different-flight-altitudes
Yep looked at that and understand the math though feel it not relevent to curvature, as the equation on link as you probably know would work on a straight line as well all we are talking about is the straight line of a horizon
OK, everyone, once again with feeling: ANY AND ALL EXAMPLES of looking for curvature over short distances (out to maybe 15-20 miles at sea, and a good deal greater than that on land) are basically meaningless. You may or may not see the effects of the Earth’s curvature over such distances; there are just too many other factors (waves, tides, refraction effects, uncertainties in distances and heights) to make such examples conclusive either way. If you wish to conclusively demonstrate that the Earth is round or flat, you need to use examples which involve long enough distances to be certain that what you are seeing results from the curvature or lack thereof.
The problem, at least from the flat-Earth perspective, is that ALL of the longer-distance examples any has cited show very clearly that the Earth IS round. I have yet to see even a single attempt at a “flat Earth” explanation for why Cuba can’t be seen EVER fron Florida, why the North Star can’t be seen from Australia, etc., etc., etc.. Why is this? If the Earth is really flat, then these long-distance effects should be far more obvious, and would be much stronger evidence. Yet these questions are NEVER tackled. Can anyone give even a halfway decent reason for this?
Im sorry thats not correct im assuming you already know the trigonometry for measuring a curve this begins at a mile,ok i know you are not going to see it at that obviously but to say nothing under 20 miles can not be counted is not right and on the right stretch of water waves can not really come into it you are making false claims bring it back to a logical position of understanding if you were neasuring something in your garden you wouldnt say oh the first few metres dont need to be straight its the opposite when finding a straight line or running one your starting point being correct is paramount
mattj1971 I see Bob’s logic here, he is not wrong. It is very difficult to measure refraction without a lot of equipment. So Bob is saying to ignore things that could be affected by refraction.
Such as the fact that I can never see France from Portsmouth, no matter what optics I use and even when stood on the top floor of the spinnaker tower. Surely France is big enough not to have ‘vanished’.
Granted i see what bob means and understand that atmospheric refraction can affect things but the thing i struggle with and please, anyone ,suggestions not insults welcome ,is this…The human eye can see about 3 miles out due to the curvature of the earth so if this is affected at this distance then it must be seen looking outwards and from side to side as looking from atop a sphere you are at the highest point whichever direction you look.Therefore if the eye can only see 3 miles or so out but 20 miles across curvature should be seen,you dont need to know the exact specific distance as the horizontal line of the water is the point of reference
mattj1971 Okay, I think I understand your question. If you use a compass to draw a small circle on a large ball, then the 3 miles would be the radius of the circle. What you are seeing, side to side, is the circumference of the circle, pi x 2r, so yes, about 20 miles in circumference. But as you are looking at the circumference all around you, it is all at the same angle, so looks flat side to side.
Did I understand your question right?
mattj1971 If the Earth was flat how far away would the horizon be? The math would not work on a flat Earth.
The horizon is the vanishing point , that’s why it’s always at eye level .
Austruth The horizon is not the vanishing point at all. Look up the definition. It can be both above eye level and below eye level. It is simply where the sky meets the sea, OR the land.
If you took just a few minutes to measure this then you would know.
Even your new mate Matt has admitted it is not always at eye level.
Go measure the damn thing from the beach and then from a few hundred metres and you will see for yourself.
I have observerd and measured the horizon exactly how you said and it is at eye level and The definition will be based on a globe .
Austruth If you have measured it from any altitude then I call bs.
We have mount Stuart in my town . It has an observation deck . Quite easy to measure it up against a pole that holds up the roof . . Horizon was exactly my height up the pole . Too easy
Austruth So you didn’t measure the degrees? So you didn’t measure it the way I suggested at all.
So you are just going to ignore any sense of perspective on this.
Why not measure the degrees to sea level at various heights, like I actually suggested? Or will that do? One ‘measurement’ and you are happy.
I’m glad no scientist works like that.
Easy to measure shit on a flat plane . Bit more difficult to measure a spinning ball travelling around the sun at 67000 miles per hour while hurtling through space at 500,000 miles per hour .
Austruth Not that hard you are traveling with the spinning ball, so you don’t notice the movement.
Have you ever flown in a commercial airliner? After the plane levels off you won’t feel the movement of the plane even though you are going 500 miles an hour or so relative to the earth. If you get up and stretch your legs or go to the bathroom you will feel yourself moving relative to the plane, but you won’t feel your movement relative to the earth. You won’t say “wow I am walking at over 500 mph.” In fact assuming you have leveled off at 20,000-40-000 ft or so even looking out the window you won’t say “boy the earth is really zooming by at 500 mph.” If you were flying past trees at 500 mph you would really notice it by looking out the window, but at 20,000 ft it seems quite slow. This not based on my being a pilot, but on having been a passenger.
When we are talking about our orbit around the sun we are talking about orbiting something 93,000,000 miles away, so no we don’t notice the movement, we can observe it over time, and note it by things like the changes in seasons, but we can’t feel it in our bodies, or see it on a second to second bases.
Austruth What happens when you have high ground to your left and low ground to your right? Is the horizon always at eye level?
Austruth Here, just in case you do not know how to:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+horizon
The line at which the earths surface and sky appear to meet . Exactly .
Austruth So a straight line, from your eye, to where the sky and Earth meet is at 0 degrees, whatever your altitude?
So if you are at 2000m and looking at the sea, the horizon is at eye level? In other words, the sea has over the distance between the beach and the horizon, magically climbed uphill 2000m?
Yep, I call bs.
The horizon line in the last plane I flew in was at my eye level . I did not have to look Down . Case closed
Austruth And again, did you measure it? Or is that just a gut feeling because it’s nice to look at.
Stretch your hand out in front of your face. The width of your little finger is approximately 1 degree. Are you saying you know whether the horizon is 1 degree from your eye level?
I mean, even the most experienced builders wouldn’t risk something like that. That’s why all these accurate measurement systems were invented. Our perception of something is not always accurate.
Austruth What about people who live in valleys, is their horizon at eye level too?
I live in a valley . All I see are hills . Your starting to ask silly Qs again sly .
Austruth So where you live, the horizon is above eye level?
There is no horizon . I have hills all around me . Point?
Austruth The horizon is where the sky meets the land or the sea.
So you live somewhere there is no horizon?
You really are beyond help aren’t you? Were you the same way in school? Is that where all this nonsense started?
Yeah it sucks but no horizon , obviously that is only 1 side but that hill goes just about all around me .
Austruth Like I have shown you, the horizon is where the sky meets the Earth. It doesn’t matter what shape the Earth is, that is the definition of the horizon. So if you live in a valley, the tops of the hills become the horizon. The horizon has nothing to do with the vanishing point. A vanishing point is a point, not a line as the horizon is…. that’s the definition of ‘point’. It’s a vanishing point, not a vanishing line.
And again, if you have high ground to your left and low ground to your right, how can the horizon be at eye level? You would have two distinctly different levels of ground, they can’t both be at eye level.
Even the statement that the horizon is the vanishing point makes no sense. The horizon is 360 degrees around you, it is not a point at all.
A vanishing point is an imaginary point used by artists in order for them to draw things in perspective and they will usually use either 1 point or two. Though they can use more if they are drawing objects that are not perpendicular or parallel to each other.
You obviously have your head so far up your ass that you cannot add together two plus two without looking for the answer on a dubious youtube video and parroting back that it is five.
What do you think happens when people read your statements . The hill becomes the horizon? Please Sly no more!! No one in history has ever looked at the top of a hill 1 KLM away and said look at the horizon LOL .
Austruth You obviously missed the definition of ‘horizon’. Are you saying you only ever get a horizon over the sea?
Austruth I’ll agree with you on that one small point the horizon in you picture is not the hiil. The horizon is about at the level where the houses are it is where the earth would meet the sky if there were no hill. It is the level that the sun would set at if there were no hill. That make two things we agree on more or less.
Austruth I don’t usually post other people’s videos, but the numbers towards the end of this might be of some use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YzeGRFDIms
I’ve seen it before . I notice soaring eagle had a post LOL . The boat over the horizon was a time lapse which looked fake I’m sorry . It also not what I see when I had my telescope
slymonster Austruth with respect , this video is wearing blinkers and is really only for the sheeple . the astronauts towards the end with that music was absolutely awesome , it was just like a movie.
toxicavenger slymonster Austruth There doesn’t appear to be one iota of respect in your comment. We are not ‘sheeple”.
Please provide any and all proof you have that any picture or movie from NASA is fake. Note that stating the earth is flat and therefore they have to be fake is not proof, it is just pardon the pun, circular reasoning.
slymonster Austruth A great video, and shows Gemini 4 again. You know when Gemini 4 went up, we didn’t have video tape, I think TV studios might have, but average people didn’t, so if you wanted to see something again, you had to hope it would be replayed on TV,or you could get a movie of it on 8mm film and later on super 8mm film, you could get 16 mm also, but most people didn’t have 16 mm projectors. So that is what we did, we had films of Gemini 4 and Gemini 6-7. It was a wonderful time to be alive to watch all the progress to we we making in space travel. It is really disheartening to hear these flat earthers claim it is all fake.
Austruth Ah, but there is an eye level. An artist could draw a perspective drawing even in a valley. The vanishing point is eye level not the horizon.
Austruth the photo you posted has perspective.
Austruth No it isn’t. Eye level is the vanishing point, in perspective drawing it called the horizon, but the horizon relates to the where the earth meets the sky.
TomTrevor Austruth I’ve given up on him. I can’t debate someone who changes the definition of words. It’s like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn’t matter that the pigeon doesn’t know how to play chess, at some point it will knock over the pieces, shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
Fuck off dickhead . Your the one trying to make the horizon the top of s hill 800 meters away to suit your story . You and your cronies talk too much shit and you’ve been found out . Don’t reply to me anymore . I will only talk to people who are willing to listen . You and your musketeers never disagree with each other about anything . For all we know your the same wanker with multiple names .
Austruth And there it is.
I stand by the Oxford English Dictionary and their definition How that makes me the one changing the definition of words I do not know.
Oh, and it is ‘You’re the one’ not ‘Your the one’, it’s short for ‘you are’.
And a vanishing point is by definition a point not a line, such as ‘horizon’. The two are very separate things. Each object has it’s own vanishing point. Artists can use a number of vanishing points when they draw something in perspective. You really need to learn the basics if you want to debate something like this.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth I think that is the smart thing to do.It is of course what he wants. It hard to believe anyone can be both computer literate and as flaming stupid at the same time, so I strongly suspect he is faking stupidity.
He claims this website is for people like him.He want to take it over.
I think it possible that there are tribes in the Congo and other third world countries where they think the Earth is flat, but that is because they have not been educated, even the tribes in the Congo are smarter than this guy is pretending to be.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth and to think mattj1971 calls me angry.
slymonster TomTrevor Austruth Might end up winning too by sheer persistence.
Thats a bit of a non sensical question and once again im not saying the earth is one thing or another sooo how far would the horizon be ?the answer is how far can you see and of course the math would work of i could see 5,6,7 or 8 miles it doesnt mean the math do not work..im merely applying logic
mattj1971 If using the degrees to the horizon on a flat Earth, that would be all you knew. Without knowing the lenghts of any of the sides, you wouldn’t be able to calculate the height. On a flat Earth, how would you know the lengths of any of the sides? The 90 degree angle would be underneath you, you could measure the angle to the horizon but wouldn’t know anything else. So please, give me the trig that could be used to determine your height.
mattj1971 Matt first would you look a few posts up and see the language mr down under uses. Why do ask why I am angry and you don’t ask him?
TomTrevor I guess it is easy to get angry when your flat world starts to fall to pieces.
I am right there with you with regards to the space programme(s). I find it very insulting that people still think we never got to the moon. It’s one of man’s greatest achievements and was watched by people from all over the world. I try not to get into debates about whether the landings were faked now. The last time I did, I argues with someone for a week over why their ‘evidence’ that we didn’t was total rubbish. When he then said ‘Well why did we only ever go there once’ I just lost interest. You just can’t argue with ignorance like that.
My world is doing just fine thanks to you and others like you ridiculous arguments . The globe is falling apart and that’s why you have been employed to do this disinformation job . You may not even know that’s why you were employed but a jobs a job I suppose . Angry? No frustrated but happy in the knowing I am on the right side of the chat .
Austruth I see you are delusional too.
Austruth Seriously, you think someone – ANYONE – is actually “employed” to post here? WHY? Who in the world would PAY people to try to convince a few people whose opinions don’t really matter one way or the other that the Earth isn’t flat?
mattj1971 Real most of what I have learned about the Earth being round came for observations. They don’t teach that the earth is round in college for the same reason the don’t teach us to read Hop On Pop, it is too elemetal
TomTrevor mattj1971 What they do teach on an engineering degree is how to apply physics and math to real world situations and problems. This gives an engineer a very good insight into how the world really works and how to measure it.
When people let the likes of Eric Dubay confuse them with his pseudo-science they are throwing out the very same science that has built the modern day world. They also seem to lose the ability to think critically. Most of the videos start with some spurious observation, they then mix terms, re-define words and eventually end up with another observation which they then say something like ‘I don’t understand how this can work on a globe Earth so the Earth must be flat’. And without offering up any real evidence or math they just expect you to believe them.
Science is not, as they would have you believe, some sort of religious belief system. Science is simply a framework for investigation.
My frustration sets in when people claim they can observe something that goes against what science says but offer no measurements or evidence. Case in point, with people saying that at cruising altitude in a plane the horizon is at eye level. How they can discern a few degrees visually is beyond me. I was sat on an Airbus A123 last month. Sitting upright in my non-reclining chair, the top of the windows were below my eye level. Sat on the runway I could not see the horizon without lowering my head for obvious reasons. At cruising altitude I could see the horizon without lowering my head. Of course, I couldn’t take any measurements, but that was enough to know that the horizon was below my eye level.
Another example, my wife is quite a bit shorter than me. My eye level is about 8 inches above the top of her head. If the horizon was always at my eye level then it would always be above her head, as long as she wasn’t standing 8 inches higher than me. This is clearly not the case. I have seen the horizon below the top of her head on numerous occasions. Sometimes a lot below the top of her head, such as when 3,400 metres up the side of Mount Teide.
After showing photographs to one FE’er to prove my point he said that it was probably just me pointing my camera down. Then showed me photographs taken from a high altitude balloon that showed the horizon in the centre of the frame exclaiming that those photographs proved the horizon to be at eye level. Because of course when people send balloons up into the atmosphere to photograph the horizon they wouldn’t think to point the camera downward slightly to hedge their bets. Not to mention the fact that you have little control over where the camera points while the balloon is being blown around. I find this not only to be cherry picking at it’s worse, I find it intellectually dishonest of those that produce these FE videos.
All u flat earth nuts, why dont u crowdfund a spacerocket, send one of your nuts to the edge of space, take a fucking picture of your flat earth and come back to show usU0001f602U0001f602U0001f602
jonx3 we don’t have a picture of a ball yet either cgi’s don’t count , and don’t rocket engines need oxygen to work ? I read onenasa boss back before the ‘moon’landings was a thing saying the petrol tank would have to be the size of the empire state building , and there’s no inertia in ‘space’ either or oxygen. what are your thoughts ? I won’t reply if your abusive , there is actually something to this subject
toxicavenger jonx3 Firstly, there are many satellites in space that take pictures of the Earth daily. So we do have pictures. There was also the pictures taken by the Gemini and Apollo missions that were taken on good old celluloid film.
Secondly, rocket engines do not need the presence of oxygen as the fuel needed to burn is all contained within the propellant, ie, the fuel and the oxidiser. They do not use petrol as a propellant.
Thirdly, Inertia exists in space. In fact, inertia is more easily calculable in space as you do not have so many other things working against it. Each action requires an equal and opposite reaction, even in space.
slymonster michael mcelligott jonx3 I tried to change my name to my actual name but it didn’t seem to work,and you don’t call yourself slymonster for nothing, and I know better than to argue with a slyman, you might want to check the ‘rocket engines do not need oxygen’ , that’s why they have a flame isn’t it ?
I think you guys are just doing this to be annoying and misleading because all your doing is attacking anything to do with anything regardless . I
m about to leave your super enlightened sight if that’s all this is gonna be
michael mcelligott slymonster jonx3 Leave if you like, that is up to you. I did say that the propellant contains an oxidiser, which is correct. And my response was to someone who thought a rocket couldn’t work in a vacuum because of this reason. Of course, in a vacuum they are more likely to work more efficiently, but that’s another story. Do a little research, or at least read my comment before saying I am incorrect.
slymonster michael mcelligott jonx3
“you might want to check the ‘rocket engines do not need oxygen’ , that’s why they have a flame isn’t it?”
No one said rocket engines don’t need oxygen AT ALL – only that they do not require an EXTERNAL source of oxygen, since they carry their oxidizer with them. As Sly said, rocket engines work BETTER in a vacuum, for a couple of reasons – chief among them being the easily-demonstrated fact that rocket engines work by “throwing mass overboard,” which is easier to do without anything in the way.
“Im about to leave your super enlightened sight if that’s all this is gonna be”
If you meant “site,” and are referring to this page, then I’m sure you’ll be greatly missed…
slymonster michael mcelligott jonx3 Here’s a quick couple of questions for anyone who is still under the impression that rockets require an external oxygen source, or that they won’t work without “something to push against” and so wouldn’t work in a vacuum:
Do you think an ordinary handgun would work in space? Why or why not?
bobm73 slymonster michael mcelligott jonx3 More to the point. Why does a handgun work here on Earth. The propellant for the round is encased in brass so it can’t get any oxygen from the air for the round to work.
toxicavenger jonx3 Amazing how you believe what you’ve read some where and we are the ones who are brain washed. The main guidance system for rockets is inertial guidance systems that work with gyroscopes. Do you want to provide some theoretical reason way there shouldn’t be inertia in space? No I didn’t think so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-1 What do you think all that fog forming near the rockets before liftoff is from? It is from liquid oxygen and and I think in case of the space shuttle liquid hydrogen. The link is to the other type of propellant used in the Saturn V it is related to kerosene which itself is related to jet fuel. Just before liftoff huge amount of LOX is pumped into the rocket, the liftoff is basicly a controlled explosion.
TomTrevor michael mcelligott jonx3
“Just before liftoff a huge amount of LOX is pumped into the rocket…”
And just so none of you are confused by this, he’s not talking about brined salmon.
bobm73 TomTrevor michael mcelligott jonx3 Look I want them to do a little bit of research on their own, if they don’t know what LOX is, they can google it.
toxicavenger jonx3 First, we have thousands upon thousands of pictures of the round Earth, many dating back to long before “CGI” was even possible. This includes the famous picture of Earthrise over the Moon taken by the astronauts of Apollo 8.
What would make you think that there’s no inertia in space? Inertia is a property of mass; it does not require either gravity nor an atmosphere. Rockets don’t require an atmosphere either, and carry their own oxidizers, generally (for manned spacecraft) in the form of liquid oxygen. And while it would’ve taken an enormous rocket to have achieved a DIRECT flight to the moon (look up the “Nova C8” rocket for details), that was not the method NASA finally chose, instead going with the lunar-orbit rendezvous (LOR) proposal. As it was, the Saturn V was the largest launch vehicle ever built, a record that will likely be eclipsed in the near future but one which has stood for over 40 years.
bobm73 toxicavenger jonx3 http://www.gyroscopes.org/glossary.asp
Note I separated and and put in bold the part about spinning objects, because as I keep trying to point out rotational interna is independent from the the interna of mass. I also point to this article because it make clear that G forces can be thought of as the same as gravity, so when a truck driver, to take a random example, is thrown against his seat it because of the fact acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. I wish some truck drivers would stop to consider what means.
http://www.gyroscopes.org/glossary.asp
“Inertia
Inertia, the property of matter that causes it to resist any change of its motion in either direction or speed. This property is accurately described by the first law of motion of the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton: An object at rest tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion tends to continue in motion in a straight line unless either is acted upon by an outside force. Passengers in an accelerating automobile feel the force of the seat against their backs overcoming their inertia so as to increase their velocity. As the car decelerates, the passengers tend to continue in motion and lurch forward. If the car turns a corner, a package on the car seat will slide across the seat as the inertia of the package causes it to continue moving in a straight line.
“Any body spinning on its axis, such as a flywheel, exhibits rotational inertia, a resistance to change of its rotational speed.”
A force must act upon the wheel to slow or speed up its rotation. The matter in the wheel is constrained to move along a curved path by the molecular forces that hold the wheel together. The speed of the material along the curved path cannot be changed, however, without overcoming its inertia, and this gives rise to rotational inertia. The inertia of spinning objects results in other phenomena, notably the gyroscopic effect. By common experience, inertia is generally related to mass, the amount of matter in a body. A greater force is needed to accelerate a baseball than to accelerate a Ping-Pong ball. The relation is expressed by Newton’s second law of motion: Force=mass X acceleration. This equation is the basis of the field of dynamics, the study of moving bodies. According to the formula, the inertia of a body as determined by an acceleration experiment is measured in mass units. Mass, however, is more often measured by its gravitational property, that is, the attractive force it exerts on other masses. If the other mass is the earth, then weight is a measure of mass. T he identity between gravitational mass (measured by attractive force) and inertia (measured by acceleration) is a cornerstone of physics. The fact that inertial force and gravitational force are both directly proportional to mass was first realized and demonstrated by Galileo about 1590. According to Galileo, a light weight and a heavy weight dropped from the top of a tower must strike the ground simultaneously. Modern repetitions of Galileo’s experiment performed in the laboratory have failed to reveal any difference between gravitational force and inertial force. Albert Einstein theorized that gravitational forces and inertial forces are identical and that it is impossible to distinguish between them. This equivalence principle is the basis of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. According to this theory, local properties of inertia and gravitation are the result of the entire mass of matter in the universe and the space in which it exists. Although the theory of general relativity is not fully accepted, the few experimental tests that scientists have so far been able to conduct have tended to confirm the theory.
“Inertia,” Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1993 Microsoft Corporation.
Copyright (c) 1993 Funk & Wagnall’s Corporation”
bobm73 toxicavenger jonx3 So among other things the spinning of the earth tends hold the atmosphere in place rather than throw it into outer space.
Jupiter is either mainly gases or all gases. It is spinning, as can be observed by watching the big red spot . It is spinning a lot faster than the Earth ( a day on jupiter is 9.8 hours) yet the atmosphere of jupiter doesn’t spin out into space. It is the spinning that helps hold Jupiter together.
This one’s for soaringeagle it isn’t a sailplane, but hey it is still kind of cool and other people might get a kick out of it. https://www.facebook.com/willyfoo/videos/10153722246704245/
TomTrevor soaringeagle Rather her than me. Pucker-up buttercup.
What pisses me off about you flat earthers is how you are willing to tell people online who you have never met and likely will never meet that they are liars while safely hiding behind pseudonyms.
Some of my college professors worked at or were retired from Grumman the company that built the LEM. If NASA is lying then The engineers at Grumman were lying too, why don’t you see if any of them are still alive and tell them they are liars, although they would be in their 80s now, I bet they will kick your sorry butts.Can’t find them tell their kids, in person now.
Independent of college I knew two test pilots for Grumman, not much scared they guys, find one of the test pilots and tell them and tell them to their faces that they are liars.
In addition to Grumman, Boeing would have to be lying. Odd isn’t it Boeing is filled with a bunch of liars yet the safest airplanes ever built are built by Boeing, but go on find someone from Boeing and tell them they are liars. All subcontractors would have to be lying, fine the people who worked for say Raytheon and tell them in person they are liars.
I posted the picture from Gemmi 4 of Edward White, who died in Apollo 1, I don’t know if his widow is still alive or if he has kids, but go find out, and tell them to their face that their husband/father was a liar.
Everyone who has been on the ISS or the Space Shuttle must be a liar, rather than settle for calling people who are alive liars, why not find the widows of the people who died in the Columbia accident and tell them their loved ones were liars.
Not so easy to actually tell the thousands of people who worked on this program that they all were lying if you have to do it in person and with your real name? Is it?
Why are you getting so angry?you are taking this way way too personally if you were sitting round a table this would be a good debate i dont understand the widows and family stuff you cant stifle other peoples opinions in this way.
mattj1971 As I have stated before my logic teacher would not have liked this, but I didn’t make it personal the flat earthers did. The problem is I have asked at least a dozen questions of the flat earthers, and not one of them was answered,most of the time they just pretended to that I didn’t asks anything, and it hasn’t been just me all of the other reasonable observant people have asked questions and they all are left un-responded to.
I can’t teach people who aren’t willing to learn, I can’t teach people who doubt my personal story and demand their personal story be accepted. I can’t teach people who aren’t willing to look at explanations phrased in the simplest of terms. The only thing the flat earthers can do is say NASA and thousands of others are lying, so why can’t they say it to them in person?
There really is not any other side to this debate, the Earth is curved and that is a scientifically proven and easily observable fact, the only way to argue otherwise is to ignore all evidence to contrary and/or misinterpret all evidence. There simply is no evidence of a flat earth none whatsoever, there can’t be because the earth is curved.
I can’t convince people 1+1=2 All I can do is suggest that you count, if after counting you claim that you came up with 3, I can attempt to show you why 1+1=2 but if you continue to say it is 3 what am I to do? How am I supposed to act if you then start claiming that everyone who taught me that 1+1=2 is lying, and I am lying about being educated that 1+1=2. Why shouldn’t I be angry if you are calling people I actually know liars? Why shouldn’t I challenge you to have the courage to back up your claims that 1+1=3 in person?
Ok firstly i mean this purely from a neutral point of view but you are saying you cannot teach people if they are not willing to learn,this is an assumption that you are correct on all fronts.I came to this site so i could listen to both points of view,as i believe you have to listen and explore different opinions put forward.I am still qiute amused at the reaction to anyone who puts forward a possible flat earth question.If it were about God nobody would bat an eyelid..hell Stephen Hawkins made a documentary about it.I personally only investigated it when a friend of mine mentioned it and being open minded thought he made some good points.There is on youtube a guy called Mark Sargent who brought out flat earth clues its well worth a look and does raise questions.Like i said this is not aimed at you Tom you have made good points and come across as an intelligent person i just feel people let their emotions take over on both sides of the debate and it clouds the water
mattj1971 Matt, I’m obviously not Tom but I’d like to respond to a few of the points you’ve raised, if that’s OK.
First, I think you’re to be commended on trying to keep an open mind, but I think we should also keep in mind what Carl Sagan famously said: “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.” That DOESN’T mean that anyone is stupid for CONSIDERING any and all notions, but it does mean that this consideration has to be done rationally; you need to apply some thought to everything you’re asked to accept. Nor does “keeping an open mind” mean that we have to accept everything and anything we’re told – that would obviously be impossible, given the contradictory nature of many of the things we’re told. So we have to come up with some reliable, fair method of determining what things, among ALL those we are told, are actually true. I happen to think that the scientific method is the best example of such a thing that we have, based on its track record. But it’s sometimes challenging to properly conduct a “scientific” investigation. For one thing, you have to be absolutely willing to toss out any preconceived notions you may have, IF and WHEN solid evidence and reasoning to the contrary is brought to your attention. This is where most people get it wrong – they come up with what they WANT to believe first, and THEN try to pick and choose from among the available evidence to find only those bits that they think support what they want to be true. Sorry, but reality just doesn’t work like that.
And I want to ask you about something you said in the above, namely:
“I am still quite amused at the reaction to anyone who puts forward a possible flat earth question.”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here – are you amused at the reaction to the people who ask how things should work IF the Earth is flat, or reactions to the people who are saying that it IS flat? I have to admit, the reaction to the people who are saying that the Earth is flat very often comes out of sheer frustration, when we’re having to address the same points (and the same errors) over and over and over again. (The other problem with the scientific method is that it’s done by human beings, and we’re always going to be subject to such things as emotions and fatigue and the like. So we’re not always as good at it as we should be.)
I’ll look for the video you mentioned from this Mark Sargent, but I have to be up front with you – I have yet to see a video, book, article, online posting, etc. in support of the flat Earth notion that didn’t contain some very serious errors which show up early on. And no one has time to sit through all of these, especially when that sort of problem crops up again and again and again. So I’ll let you know how that turns out, OK?
mattj1971 OK, I tried to find the Mark Sargent video you mentioned; turns out that Mr. Sargent has produced literally HOURS of video, including this “condensed” version (which is still over two hours long):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoHoFhIxpXc
I tried to watch as much of it as I could, but frankly, I just can’t spend two hours on it. The video starts out, though, with some clearly incorrect “history,” and seems to go downhill from there. Copernicus did NOT originate the “round Earth” model; the world was known to be round all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who realized that the Earth HAD to be round through what they could see with their own eyes (for instance, that one could travel south from Greece and see constellations that were otherwise never visible). I watched through the first 20 minutes or so, and then skipped through the rest – and to be perfectly frank, I didn’t see anything, ever, in that video that I found to be worth any consideration at all. I’m not going to try to go into any of them here; most have already been more than adequately covered here and in other forums. But if you have any specific items you’d like to discuss here, please feel free to raise those questions here.
Hi bob what you say is true im not here to annoy anyone or any such thing ,thankyou for a rational open minded view.I will state now im not saying the earth is flat but there are some interesting points raised in these videos and at the very least people get a chance to blow cobwebs out of the brain and go over some long forgotten stuff..lol.Its always nice to participate in discussion on various topics.I hope you get the chance at some point to have a look at a couple of these videos.I will be back to raise some questions so please people dont get angry or dismissive…im going to conduct some experiments of my own so i have a more valid point or prove to myself and put the argument to bed.
mattj1971 Ok Matt, Here’s something you might think about can GPS get your location very closely? Can it do so in Florida and Vermont? I don’t know where you have traveled, but the answer is yes. how can it do that if the world is a flat and looks like the map flat earthers like to use?
I will look into this
TomTrevor mattj1971 Better yet, if GPS is NOT satellite-based, then how could it possibly work in the middle of the ocean? (And it does, I’ve tried it!) And then, if it IS clearly working based on a system of satellites – how could that POSSIBLY be if the Earth were flat?
(Actually, I’ll go this one better – as an engineer, I’ve worked on GPS-based systems, and know for a fact that the designs of those systems ARE based on the assumption that the data is coming from a collection of orbiting satellites; the programming simply COULD NOT work if this were not actually the case.) This is abundantly clear in the case of dedicated GPS receivers with built-in screens, many of which will give you a schematic view of just which satellites they have “in view” at any given moment.
Just a few more questions that I’m sure the FE contingent will again ignore…
bobm73 TomTrevor mattj1971 I too have used GPS, both from ships and planes when in the middle of the ocean. I have also used GPS when in the deepest valleys of Wales where you cannot pick up any other type of signal, TV, radio or Cellular.The idea that it could be ground based is ridiculous. Especially when you consider that it was originally developed for the US war machine. What would would have been the use of developing such an accurate system when the only places you could expect to use it would be the nations friendly enough to let the US build ground stations amongst it’s cities and countryside.
I don’t know about Russia, but I have used a European GPS system in China. Could you ever imagine China allowing the US to build what amounts to a missile targeting system in their country?
slymonster bobm73 TomTrevor mattj1971 To be as accurate as possible there is a ground based component of GPS in the US, but it is supplementary not primary, but y question is actually more fundamental, how can any navigation system work, if the actually looks like it does in the flat Earth Map? I mean even magnetic compasses would not work.
mattj1971 Hi, Matt – well, I’ve always said that doing these experiments, calculations, etc., for yourself is absolutely the best way to go. Some questions I would suggest you consider (and yes, I myself am coming from the position that the Earth is round, but truthfully that is because I’ve already DONE the investigations on my own and I KNOW it to be round) are as follows:
First, take a look at the “10 ways” that this web site talks about. Those should suggest some experiments to you. Some more specific items I’d want to mention, though:
1. As I pointed out earlier, the “what should be hidden due to curvature” examples are difficult to get right over short distances. It’s not that they don’t work at these distances, that’s not at all what I was saying – just that there are a lot of possible sources of low-level error, which in the cases where the distances involved are already fairly small can easily make the answer seem to go either way. If you’re very careful, then they CAN still be useful – but it should never be a case of just taking one instance over a short distance and calling that “conclusive” in any way.
2. One of the most conclusive demonstrations of curvature involves visibility over VERY long distances. Pythagoras and Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosophers, concluded that the Earth was round based on what they could see with their own eyes. If one travels north, then the North Star rises higher and higher above the horizon. On the other hand, if you travel south, the North Star sinks and eventually goes completely out of sight, and “new” constellations are now visible to the south (including such things as the Southern Cross, which are never ever visible from the north). It’s very hard to see how this might happen on a flat Earth, but it’s quite obvious if the Earth is round. You might not be able to travel, yourself, far enough to see these effects, but if you have friends who live a reasonable distance north or south of you it’s fairly easy to compare measurements of the North Star’s angular distance above the horizon.
3. That the Earth rotates is also very easy to demonstrate. See if you can find a museum in your area with a large example of the Foucault pendulum; again, it is VERY difficult to explain how that works the way it does if the Earth isn’t rotating. Gyrocompasses (NOT simple gyroscopes or gyroscopic heading indicators) are also pretty firm evidence of rotation.
4. You can directly measure the distance to the Moon, or at least you can if you can find an amateur radio (“ham”) operator who’s set up to do EME (Earth-Moon-Earth, AKA “moonbounce”) communications; the time lag for the radio signal to make it to the moon and back (at the speed of light) gives you the distance – and with the distance, you can calculate the size from the apparent (angular) diameter.
5. With the distance and size of the Moon measured, you can also easily determine the distance to the Sun, and ITS size. All you need is a telescope rig set up to do reasonably precise angular measurements. (It should go without saying, of course, that you NEVER want to observe the Sun directly, either with a telescope or by naked eye.)
6. With all of these distances and sizes measured, eclipses become very useful evidence. First of all, you would have to come up with a model that explains how those could happen in the first place (the flat Earth model has a very, very difficult time with that), and then lunar eclipses (in which the Earth’s shadow falls on the moon) give very strong evidence that the Earth is at least round, and since from #3 we also know it is spinning – so it must, in fact, be spherical or nearly so!
7. The force of gravity is strong evidence that the Earth cannot be flat (see the “10 ways” again), as if it were the only place on the planet where one could stand and be perpendicular to the surface would be at or very near the North Pole. This, of course, is why the flat-Earth believers also need to deny gravity, and instead provide some hand-waving built around “density.” But that same local museum may be able to show you an example of the Cavendish experiment of 1797 (or if you have the time and materials, you can set it up for yourself) which very conclusively demonstrates the force of attraction between any two bodies.
I will look at these bare with me time wise as i have work commitments etc look forward to future discussion
bobm73 mattj1971 matt there might not be much point spending your energy on a guy who says I KNOW . that means you don’t and you’ll just be wasting your time . this site is like a ‘black hole’ lol
michael mcelligott bobm73 mattj1971 Yes, I said “I know,” and I said WHY I know. I also clearly said that it was best for Matt to do the investigations for himself, and NOT to simply take my word, or anyone else’s, on this or any other question. What are you so afraid he’s going to find out if he DOES ask these question and do the work for himself?
bobm73 mattj1971 Congratulations on your patients.
bobm73 mattj1971 mark sargent was just the rest of us at one point to ie only nut cases think our world is not a ball , but when you take off the goggles and absorb a video or two
michael mcelligott bobm73 mattj1971 Then Mark Sargent must’ve been pretty ignorant and/or gullible before he “absorbed” those videos – how else could you explain his being taken in by all the misinformation, distortions, ignorance, outright lies, and gaping holes those videos contain?
mattj1971 I don’t see why it logically follows that if people are not willing to learn that I am making the assumption that I am correct on all fronts. What I have been asking people is to do is to show how I am incorrect. On some issues on the peripheral the whether or not the Earth is round I have corrected myself, so clearly I don’t think I am correct on all fronts. However, on the central tenant that the Earth is round is a well established a fact as 1+1=2 it requires very little proof, and as I said many times is observable. The main argument from flat earthers when shown photos from space is that the could have been faked, they offer no proof whatsoever that they are indeed fake. faking something like the Moon landing or the thousands of photos from space would be fraud on such a massive scale that it can hardly be imagined. Such fraud is highly illegal in the United States. The United State is a very lawsuit happy place we sue people all the time over some of the most insignificant things imaginable. So again I ask why don’t these Flat Earther have the courage of their convictions? Why don’t they take NASA to court, present the evidence that NASA has conducted fraud on a massive scale, prove it to a judge, or is it that if a judge rules against them the judge must be in on the plot too?
TomTrevor mattj1971 Here you go.
SAR27 TomTrevor mattj1971 Here I go where?
GOODBYE BALLERS HOPE IT WORKS OUT FOR YA’S
michael mcelligott Goodbye.
Not flat earth debate but points of view welcome check out on youtube..lunar waves by crrow777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon what is wrong with this?
Can anyone help me out with this im struggling to find any footage of the iss or any satellite filmed or photographed from earth
mattj1971 Try a google image search for ‘iss against the moon’.
Great suggestion – but do that as a regular Google search, and you’ll find interesting pages like this one:
http://time.com/3948830/international-space-station-moon/
Note that this photograph was taken by an amateur! (Gee, he must be being paid to be part of this whole conspiracy, too! ;-))
And here’s a fantastic photo, taken by a French photographer, which is claimed to be the first picture ever taken from the ground of an astronaut during EVA:
http://www.astrophoto.fr/STS-133.html
(No, you don’t see the astronaut clearly, but given the comparison with the shot taken from the ISS, it’s pretty obvious that he’s there!)
bobm73 Amazing video of the ISS on that page. That must have taken a heck of a lot of setting up and patience. I can’t imagine that was his first attempt.
bobm73 It’s amazing what you can find if you actually bother to look isn’t it. Of course photographs don’t ‘prove’ anything, unless of course they support the idea of a flat earth, then they are conclusive.
mattj1971 Hey matt, when I have seen satellites with the naked eye, they have not looked like much, not much different than far away planes at night. We once did try to see the ISS, and went to the beach to try to see it, I don’t think we saw it, a lady at the beach claimed that a light we saw was the ISS, but it couldn’t have been because it was after the time it was suppose to have been there, and it was at too high an angle and it was moving in the wrong direction. But she was sure it had to have been the ISS, she really wanted to see it.
You see a lot of people will convince themselves that what they want to see is what they really are seeing, it might be that a plane is the ISS, or that even that they don’t have a deadly disease and so don’t need treatment, I know too many people who did that. Others convince themselves that all evidence proves the Earth is flat, they are mistaken, but I think some sincerely believe it.
Hi Tom I find it a bit strange firstly thar NASA has not done it ..its quite technically possible and secondly there is nothing on the internet apart from a couple of very hazy clips which could be anything.i will keep looking but bit baffled at the moment
mattj1971 the iss is thunderbirds/space treck presented as reality on our tv . doctors and university lecturers ect will fight it all the way to their early grave, because their right and your wrong and that’s end of story .
Matt, I’m not sure I follow – you’re surprised NASA hasn’t done what? Taken a photo off the ISS from the ground? Why would that be surprising? NASA has excellent pictures off the ISS, taken from spacecraft right next to it, and many people outside of NASA have already taken pictures from the ground (several of which have been shown or linked to in this discussion). And any photo NASA would provide would simply be called a “fake” by the conspiracy crowd anyway – so why would NASA have any need at all to take these photos on their own. (At least officially – I’m sure many NASA employees have taken their own amateur photos.)
This is where you simply can’t win arguing with a dedicated conspiracy-theory type. If you don’t provide every little bit of evidence, photos, or whatever they demand, then you’re hiding something. But if you DO provide he evidence, then you’re “obviously” faking it. So what’s the point of trying to engage with these people if you’re professionally involved?
Hey Matt . I believe there is something up there as you can see it with your owns eyes . I doubt very much it is manned however and I do doubt that you should see it from so far away . My ISS tracker tells me it is 1200 miles away . How small would a football field look from that far ? If you use round earth math to work out how far the sun is away it is 93 mil miles away . Flat earth 3000 miles . I think it might be the same thing with the ISS if you use flat to do your math .
Austruth Hey Austrth old buddy. Apparently you know that I am being paid to say these things, well can you please contact whomever it is who is suppose to be paying me, because no checks have arrived. I think this work should be worth about $50,000 US, so if you get whomever it is who should pay me to pay up, I’ll give 10% for until you told me i was being paid, I didn’t know it.
Hi austruth ..there doesnt seem to be any pics taken from earth of satellites or iss
mattj1971 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/GBOAG/ISS2.jpg
mattj1971 That was from the first link that came up with the google search terms “ISS from Earth” There almost surely are more but good heavens do some work yourself.
mattj1971 Want to know the camera settings, it i there in the link.
mattj1971 And if you don’t believe the photo, I didn’t take it, all I did was post the link, so if you have an objection to it, go to the link and take up with with person who took the photo.
TomTrevor mattj1971 I’ve already given the search term to use on Goole Image search ‘ISS against the moon’.
There are plenty just on that search.
It’s just another ploy. They think if they say it with enough conviction nobody will bother to check. It’s just tiresome and dishonest’.
slymonster TomTrevor mattj1971 I know you did, but I actually expected that if if did a simpler search I wouldn’t get results. It is so easy to search I really expected that Matt would have tried and failed to find anything. It is my fault for believing these flat earthers would ever be honest. It must be hard to maintain something is true when there is no supporting evidence for it.
I took a magic class once. I couldn’t do it, because I lack the dexterity in my hands and because I can’t make things up and keep a straight face these guys would be great at magic, but horrible on a jury.
So now im dishonest?oh dear
Please ????in the times of Hd this is it and whats with the comments below?i have been polite Tom but you are now talking about me as a flat earther and that you expected me to not to find anything?it seems like you cant help yourself i merely raised a question if you can help fine if not save the insults im too long in the tooth
mattj1971 Well after asking for some pictures and being provided an exact serch term that would have garnished many, you then stated that there were NONE on the web. So it was a fair conclusion to think you were being dishonest.
And I’m not quite sure what you mean by no good pictures. Considering how far away and how fast it is moving, I would say some of those pictures, taken by amateurs, are bloody great. What were you expecting to see? One of the astronauts waving through the window perhaps?
The fact that we can see it at all proves that the FE theory of a vanishing point hiding whole islands, which are a fraction of the distance away, is nonsense. The only conclusion one can then come to is that they are hidden by the curvature.
mattj1971 You know you are very good insisting we treat you with kid gloves, but you fail to do what you claim you are going to do.
TomTrevor i really dont need the kid gloves i have asked some questions and you say i have not done the things i said i would..lol sorry i didnt get any experiments done in the last 48 hrs. you have told everyone about yourself even though they didnt ask yet never ask what peoples backgrounds are.I have read your replies very carefully to people and when you are on here.Your replies have on occasion been interesting and intelligent…then the flip side comes in with acidic non sensical rants which are either some form of self loathing or purely to get a response,it matters not to me.You are a close minded bigot who could not comprehend that anything out of your point of view could possibly be right and yet fail to realise that it is the questioning of things this and this alone that all yes all scientific breakthroughs are made.The nastiness of your replies for no reason other than it does not conform with your narrow view is de-structive not con-structive.Go back and look at your responses to people you go along then just cant help yourself..you have to do it,get the insult in.And you had the bare faced cheek on one occasion to tell someone to confront a dead astronauts widow..wtf.I talk to people online the same way i would face to face,maybe you should follow this example and think before you write.Please dont reply maybe just reflect and the next person that comes here looking for rational exchange of ideas take a break and listen to others
http://youtu.be/QyeLD04SOII . If you want a laugh watch this . Notice there is no doors inside the ISS to isolate rooms in case of emergency . And watch the lady astroNOT as she rises up and can’t stop herself .
Austruth You didn’t actually watch the video Skymonster post last night, or yesterday around noon to you down under did you?
Even the guy who says they spit out the toothpaste can be clearly seen swallowing some before spitting out the rest, heck here on earth I swallow some, it isn’t harmful if you don’t have fluoride in your water and is only minorly harmful if you do have fluoride in the water. He says “water is very dangerous so we have to be very careful with water.” He doesn’t say “water is dangerous so we we can never use water,” that would be stupid, of course they need water, she swallows the water right away. What is dangerous about that?
She isn’t being pulled around she is just floating, you guys have never been scuba diving have you? I am sure there is an air circulation system on the ISS and changes in the flow from it could more than account for the slight movement we see.
You have seen way too many space movies if you think a space station of this size would waste the weight from doors that would be of very little use. but in fact there is an airlock of some sort right behind her. I don’t know where that leads, do you?
If just once you said…yeah that is strange and I don’t know what’s going on there like a normal person you might have some credibility . But no!!! Never . That girl floating upwards is not normal . Admit it!!!
Austruth No. I won’t lie, because you want me to. I have admitted I agree with you on two things at least one of which Slymonster disagrees with me on.
I have corrected mistakes I have made several times. I am not perfect. I corrected Solareagle on a point about gyros. I have made mistakes.
Now name one time you have said “That Tom, or Slymaonstern or Soareagale makes a good point,” one time you agreed with us on anything? Wow you think there is gravity , but you refuse to try to understand it. That is hardly showing you have any doubts that maybe just maybe you might be mistaken about something you think you saw. No you have no doubts at all. We have to believe everything you say.
Austruth Also just above here I agree with you and Matt that to the naked eye the ISS doesn’t look like hill of beans. I have bent over backwards to find thing I can agree with you on any yet you claim I don’t have any doubts. But you offer no proof that NASA has lied about anything just the claim that “well they could have.” It is very hard to find point of agreement with someone who denies all photographic evidence for anything. but when you believe even one photo anyone posts beside the Flat Earthers, it will be the first one.
I don’t agree with everthing FE say . I believe the map is wrong because as of yesterday I met my 3rd person that has flown straight through to Sth America from Aust . I have been on Twitter arguing that point and getting smashed for it and people calling me a shill LOL . I know what I see . I will not argue with anyone about stuff I don’t reckon I know about . Eg planets , stars . I do however know that boats do not go over the horizon which I have witnessed myself . That’s why I am here , because if they only go out of sight and don’t dip over the curve then the earth is not what we are being told . If you are legit and not on here to discourage our thoughts then I can only say why are you on here so often ? No way I would come on here if I thought we were on a spinning ball like we have been told . The reason why there are so many people converting to FE is because it sounds logical and no way 6 months ago I thought I would have said that .
Austruth I am here because a while before Christmas, I was on Facebook and someone posted a video about the seasons, that didn’t seem right to me, but I couldn’t really tell why,because it was too fast, so I wanted to learn more about the seasons, you see I don’t know everything, but this video didn’t seem to me to be what I had learned, so I watched a YOUtube video about the seasons. From that I still wasn’t sure if the first video was right, again mainly because it was too fast.
So I watched the next video up which was called something like “the Earth’s orbit around the sun is more complicated than I thought.” I actually expected that the reason it was more complicated would turn out to be, because the guy didn’t understand simple things, but that was not the case, there are many many more factors involved in the Earth’s orbit than I thought.
I thought the video was very good, so I went to the comments and said I liked the video, then I scrolled down to other comment the first few were positive, others said, it was good, but it forgot this or that, or that, or the narrator was dull, things you would expect, but then I ran across a bunch of comment from Flat Earthers who just said things like “that isn’t true the Earth is flat.” Well,”that isn’t true” isn’t a logical argument is just a statement. I thought there would at most be 10 or so of these sort of comments, but it felt like there were 100 or so, Now, I am very good at admitting that perception isn’t necessarily reality so it is very possible that there were far fewer than 100, but nonetheless there were far more than I thought could ever exist in the 21st century.
So this stunned me and confused me, so I left a number of comments, after a while it became clear that nothing I said mattered to these people. So i went to a few science sites I go to to clear my head. Then I decided to look for more proof that the earth is curved than I knew off the top of my head,as I have said, this is not taught in college,it is assumed people know it. I am more than 30 years out of college,it takes a bit to remember high school and elementary school. So I came here.
I expected this site to just have people who know the earth is curved,or at least mostly people who do, I was stunned that I found so many doubters.
I was stunned that logical arguments seem to make no difference at all. Maybe it a flaw in my personally, but I believe there are objective facts, that can be proved by reason and there is belief, which can’t be proved by reason, there is a place for both, there is nothing wrong in believing your girlfriend loves you, even if you can’t prove it. There is something wrong in believing the world is flat.
That is why I came here but as for why I stay and comment so often, I have alluded to this, when someone questions my integrity it make me angry, the questioning about the curve of the Earth is frustrating, but question that I have a BS in aeronautics, and a flight instructor’s rating get me angry,again maybe that is problem with my personality.
You see I really wanted to be an astronaut, not just a pilot, I have always loved space. I remember being at cousin’s house with my mother while watched John Glenn’s launch, before launch not much happens, so we listened to the Beatles, I loved them, my cousin, who’s a bit older than me loved them, my mother hated them.
You see I grew up around the space program it was a part of my life. In college NASA was hiring for astronauts, I had some of the training they wanted, but I really knew I didn’t have “the right stuff”.
But my education didn’t stop with formal education, I have always read a lot of science book and articles and when the internet came along I really started exploring I joined a blog by a theoretical string theorist who at the time was teaching at Harvard, really when he writes about String theory I very quickly have no idea what he is talking about. But that doesn’t mean I don’t try.
I don’t know what your education was like, but to me education was not anything like brainwashing. The word Educate come from the Latin meaning to led out, or to draw out. That to me was what my eduction felt like it was drawing out thinking processes that are there in my brain, but need to be stimulated. That is part of why I stay around here, this is not easy the people here are intelligent it help my old brain to think of things I haven’t had to think about for a long time.
But another reason I stay around is because you and few others seem to so want me to go. I am not Slymonster, nor Soareagle nor anyone else, I am just me here under my own name. Butone of the first thing ai noticed here is how persistent you are in telling Slymonster to stop responding to you. Why do you do that? If someone insists that I leave it will make me want to stay more. the more you say things like “you are losing,stop responding.”The more I want to win, the more I don’t want to leave.
This isn’t a contest, but when you say things like that, I am not going to leave, you didn’t say them to me, but when you say them to slymonster, I think of him on my team.
There is a lot I don’t know I’ll start with truck driving, I can drive a car, but i know nothing about truck driving, I know almost nothing about biology, or botany,very little about nuclear physics, as I mention I don’t understand string theory, The theory of relativity was explained in School , but I didn’t really understand it, I have worked very hard to try understand it, and I think i have working understanding, but not complete, I have not idea about the politics of Africa,I know very little about Australia, I want to go there some day, just promise me you won’t be where I am. I don’t know much about the history of China, But what i really don’t know is why being ignorant of things is a positive. I know it is 12:44 am here and i am going to bed, I hope this was n honest question, because there is an honest and way too complete answer.
“I don’t agree with everthing FE say . I believe the map is wrong because as of yesterday I met my 3rd person that has flown straight through to Sth America from Aust . I have been on Twitter arguing that point and getting smashed for it and people calling me a shill LOL .”
Yes, they’re pretty quick to call people “shills” for no good reason – just as you have been. But did anyone even attempt to address the real question? Has anyone managed to come up with a map that shows how these flights are even possible? I didn’t think so. Why do you think that is? I happen to think it’s because such a map is impossible, that this could only be true if the Earth is round. But if you can come up with one, I’m certainly open to seeing it.
“I know what I see.”
Sure; but how do you know that your explanation for what you see is correct?
“I do however know that boats do not go over the horizon which I have witnessed myself.”
Let’s be honest here, though – you have seen some points “not go over the horizon” at short distances. Are you claimin the you have NEVER seen ANY boat go out of sight on the horizon at sea? And what about all those people who have seen this, and all the films, videos, etc.? Have to talked about this with any real seamen? What do they say? Do they ever get out of sight of land? How would that happen on a flat Earth?
“That’s why I am here , because if they only go out of sight and don’t dip over the curve then the earth is not what we are being told . If you are legit and not on here to discourage our thoughts then I can only say why are you on here so often?”
I can only answer that for myself – and yes, I AM “legit.” I’m here because it bothers me that so many people seem to be accepting a very unrealistic and illogical notion, and I’d like to understand why that is.
“The reason why there are so many people converting to FE is because it sounds logical…”
Except that It ISN’T logical. Some things may sound logical at first, but they don’t stand up to any serious questioning. Others are just silly, like the idea that the Sun is something small, close to the Earth, and moves in a circle over it. That’s especially silly when it doesn’t at all match what we see.
Austruth Ok so the map is wrong, what is the correct map?
I know it’s not any of these admitted by NASA composite images
Austruth No, because those are not “maps”; they are two-dimensional images of a three-dimensional object. And the Earth “really” looks like all of them, but never exactly like ANY of them; that’s the nature of vision and photography. For instance – tell me what the color “blue” looks like TO YOU, WITHOUT showing an example.
Sorry about that.
Austruth Do you mean admitted to, or submitted by?
Austruth I show you a non-composite photography, remember ? You did just avoid the point by going “lol, they forgot New Guinea” (then I show you it was there and that you just didn’t watch and conclude that it was possible for them to make stunning lifelike cgi BUT they could simply forget an entire country).
TomTrevor Austruth “what is the correct map”
And that really IS the question here, isn’t it?
The problem is that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to make any two-dimensional map which is consistent with all of the measurements we’ve made with respect to distances on Earth. And those measurements themselves have nothing to do with whether the Earth is flat or curved or even cubical. You can measure the distance to the next town to your north, and it comes out to, let’s say, 5 miles. The next one after that, 12 miles from the last one, then 7, then 9, then 4, and so on. You can measure all the distances between any two nearby points, all over the world – and when you’re done, and have this list of thousands and thousands of distances between two locations, just try to figure out some way to represent them ALL accurately on a flat map.
And guess what? You’ll find that you can’t do it. Sooner or later, you will HAVE to distort these measurements to make everything even SEEM to fit, and that proves to you that the original measurements could not possibly have been made on a flat surface. It is impossible to accurately map a three-dimensional object on to a two-dimensional surface. So we can be sure that the Earth is NOT, in fact, flat.
bobm73 TomTrevor Austruth Right Bob, or you can make the map that the flat earthers made minus the giant olive branches thrown in by the UN. The distances are correct from the north pole, but get too far from the pole and the shapes look totally stupid, so no GPS system, even a terrestrial one could possibly give a correct position. I guess the Earth could be square or rectangle or trapezoid,or some other type of polygon but even the F.E. people don’t claim that, and even if they did it would be more wrong than what the do claim,which is 100% wrong.
TomTrevor bobm73 Austruth I think one of the best flat maps of the Earth ever devised was by none other than Buckminster Fuller; you can see his “Dymaxion World Map” (Fuller really liked the term “Dymaxion,” and used it in naming several of his designs/inventions) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map
Note that it’s basically projecting the spherical Earth onto a different 3-D shape, a polyhedron made up of multiple flat sections. This lets you then “unfold” that polyhedron into a 2-D surface. It does a very good job of preserving scale and relative land mass size, at the expense of the resulting map not showing the Earth as a single continuous 2-D surface – there are gaps between the sections. But that sort of thing is unavoidable; again, it is IMPOSSIBLE to project a spherical surface onto a simple 2-D representation without putting distortions and gaps in somewhere. Which, as I said, is very clear proof that the Earth is at the very least roughly spherical. The distances simply DO NOT work out right any other way.
Austruth “If you want a laugh watch this”
You’re right – I DID get a laugh watching that! Basically because whoever made that video adding all the supposed “inconsistencies” is a complete idiot. They clearly don’t understand anything about how people and objects would be expected to behave in a microgravity environment. But I guess if your mind is already made up, and you really, REALLY want to find some “reason” to believe, you will.
bobm73 Austruth Once again Bob is totally right, I brought up scuba diving for a reason. Austrth thinks I claim to know everything, but I failed at scuba diving. I passed the written test with no problem , but I couldn’t maintain equilibrium in the neutral density environment. Try as I might, i couldn’t stay still underwater. My son had no problem, this appears to come naturally to some, but not to others. People who have inner ear problems might find it harder, but as already explained no one can trust their inner ear fully.
As for Austruth thinking we could run NASA, that is a great compliment, and I think Bob could do it , but I couldn’t. Running any large institution depends more on management skills more than on knowledge of the mission of the institution. IBM was once headed by Louis Gerstner Jr who previously ran Nabisco. I can’t think of two more different companies than IBM who makes supercomputers, and Nabisco who makes Oreos.
TomTrevor That’s a shame Tom. I recently got my wife into diving. She can have trouble equalising on the way down, so we have to take it quite slowly. But she’s fine on the way back up. Must just be how the valves on her Eustachian tubes work.
I did my rescue diver a few years ago, while she was doing her advanced open water. It was the hardest couple of days I have done in a long time and probably the first time I realised my body was ‘old’. Still, carrying an ‘unconscious’ diver out of the surf onto a crowded beach and pretending to give him CPR was quite comical.
As for not being able to stay still underwater, I would have questioned the instructors. My wife had exactly the same problem during her initial pool diving practice, with a local training centre, due to the staff overweighting her. I have been diving now for over 20 years, with a few breaks here and there of a couple of years. When she described the issues she was having in the pool I immediately knew what was causing it. The instructors should have spotted this. I was so unhappy with them I told her not to go back in the water with those instructors and just to finish her theory work. I then booked us a vacation to the Canary islands and she did the practical work and open water dives with an instructor there who I trust. Weighted correctly, she had no issues.
You might want to try again. Use slightly more or less weight and try adjusting the tank up or down in the BCD. These simple things can have a huge impact on the quality and safety of a dive.
slymonster TomTrevor Well I bet I could get a scuba certificate, but I was mainly doing it so I could go with my son, but he ended up quitting,not because of an problem with buoyancy , but because of other problems.
Prior to trying to get my certificate I went scuba diving in Jamaica, that was so cool. The pool was not properly chlorinated ,so we could not use the pool, so we were “stuck” with having to learn in the ocean. The ocean is much more interesting than any pool.
Anyway after a half day training we were on the reef. i had been snorkeling before, but I had never seen fish that large from under the water. At the end of the dive we had to “sit”‘on the bottom you can’t really sit in neutral buoyancy, but most people seem to be able to sort of float there looking like they are sitting, I couldn’t do it at all, so one of the instructors had to take me to the surface and put me in the boat.
TomTrevor Certainly sounds like you were under-weighted. I’m so jealous. I really want to dive Jamaica. The Canary islands is pretty good. I’ve dives with rays, turtles and dolphins there, but it still doesn’t compare to the pics and videos I have seen off the Jamaican coast. Though if I’m going that far I would probably prefer to go to Mexico. But you never know.My Brother-in-Law is from Jamaica, so it might be on the cards one day. It would be nice to go somewhere you don’t have to wear a full exposure suit.
I decided to do the rescue diver training when my wife started to dive, for no other reason than in case she get into difficulties. Don’t get me wrong, she’s a capable diver, but I could never forgive myself if anything happened to her while she was diving with me.
I doubt I’ll go any further. Maybe a few speciality certs. I quite enjoy the training if I’m honest.
slymonster TomTrevor I really think that in both Jamaica and Sarasota I was under weighted, I tried once in Burlington Vt in a pool and didn’t have the problems I had in the other classes.
slymonster TomTrevor You are rescue diver? Wow, that is very cool.
But when someone thinks that the hardest thing in the world is to be a truck driver from down under, I guess it would seem unbelievable.
Austruth “My ISS tracker tells me it is 1200 miles away . How small would a football field look from that far ?”
Well, let’s see – if that “football field” was constructed of reflective material and was reflecting the light of the Sun in your direction, I’m guessing it would show up as a pretty bright, but small, dot of light. Which, of course, is exactly what you see. Since you’re suddenly taking a liking to math, you might actually try to work out for yourself how bright it would appear. I’ll bet your “ISS tracker” even gives you an expected brightness, doesn’t it? But MAYBE you could actually work it out for yourself.
” If you use round earth math to work out how far the sun is away it is 93 mil miles away . Flat earth 3000 miles.”
You used “flat Earth math” to get that “3000 miles” number? Great! Let’s see your numbers! (Or did you really mean to say that somebody ELSE said it was 3000 miles, and you’re just taking their word for it?)
bobm73 Austruth The ships you like to talk about don’t look like much at all when the sun is behind them, just like dark spots, here in Sarasota Fl that is around sunset, but when the sun shines on them morning to early afternoon the sun they light up like anything. This isn’t based on math, but based on observations. the ships are not very reflective, they are painted steel, but the sun is very bright.
Austruth “Notice there is no doors inside the ISS to isolate rooms in case of emergency.”
You really don’t investigate any of this for yourself, do you?
The ISS doesn’t have “rooms” – it has modules, which were all flown up separately and joined together in orbit to create the station we have now. Obviously, they were not shipped up “open” – the mechanisms which permit the modules to be coupled were provided with “doors” (hatches) which were removed and stowed once each module was attached to the existing structure. They can be replaced very quickly if any given module starts to lose pressure. If you hadn’t been too lazy – and too eager to take someone else’s word for it – you could have easily found the details to all this online, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Berthing_Mechanism
bobm73 Austruth I knew I had read about this somewhere:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/07/tiny-space-satellite-make-at-home-pocketqube
Basically you are very soon going to be able to launch your own satellite into space. A bit risky if the Earth is flat don’t you think?
It just seems strange this day of age there is no good pics
No good pics – of the ISS from the ground? You’ve already been shown what are some spectacularly good pictures. Remember, we’re talking about an object that is only about 300 X 200 feet in size, that is at least 230 miles or so away, and which is moving fast enough to orbit the entire Earth in about 90 minutes. What sort of pictures would you expect under those conditions?
mattj1971 Again if you have problems with it talk to the people who took the picture the link is there.
mattj1971 I knew I had read about this somewhere:http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/07/tiny-space-satellite-make-at-home-pocketqube
Basically you are very soon going to be able to launch your own satellite into space. A bit risky if the Earth is flat don’t you think?
Maybe you could build one to take photos of the ISS.
Very droll sly see that stand up routine is coming along nicely
mattj1971 🙂 I’m not going to give up my day job just yet.
Ok one of my post seems to have disappeared, so forgive me if this is a repeat, but I wanted to see the dragons or whatever it is a the end of the earth, and since no human could ever climb the ice wall, how deep would I have to drill to come out of the other side of the earth?
I am just not so sure that no human could ever climb a 195 ice wall.
But it would be very hard to do in the Antarctic winter. Very hard. Oh wait there can’t be an Antarctic winter or summer because the Antarctic encircles the entire globe, er I mean the entire disk, meaning that points that people who have traveled from on to the other. not only had to magically gone from one side of the earth or the other, but also have gone from summer to winter magically.
Oh dear this means we have to talk about seasons, oh I feel soooo sorry for you flat Earthers. Seasons are really tough for you guys, but good luck.
TomTrevor stop acting like a child your a grown man , look up cognitive dissonance
michael mcelligott TomTrevor I thought you left, I said goodbye you. I don’t need to look up conjugative dissonance I know what it means,. you need start thinking, and goodbye.
michael mcelligott TomTrevor Unless you want to try to explain seasons, this should be fun.
michael mcelligott TomTrevor The ad hominem attacks are getting a bit much, I act like a child,I have cognitive dissidence the video by Slymonster looks alike movie. Yet you present zero facts and answer zero questions.
TomTrevor michael mcelligott the un flag map is where we are ,international flight paths from the ‘outer hemisphere’ ie southern don’t make sense on a globe eg austalia to south Africa and going through dubi [north Africa] , water doesn’t ‘curve’ it sits level in any container its in no matter how big or small, 95 % of international communications are by under sea cables , where’s an old satellite or space ship that school kids can check out like they can with any real world technology, its very convenient that they supossebly disappear into outer space , boats going over the horizon meaning its a ball is archaic .
fact – water doesn’t curve
fact- there are no southern hemisphere directflights
fact-under sea cables and radio towers ect
fact-no old satellites to appreciate
fact-it was nice talking
michael mcelligott TomTrevor The space shuttles didn’t burn up well sadly two did but here’s where school kids can see them. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/shuttle_station/features/shuttle_map.html
michael mcelligott TomTrevor https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27
“fact- there are no southern hemisphere direct flights”
Qantas 63, Sydney to Johannesburg, nonstop.
Qantas 27, Sydney to Santiago, nonstop.
Do you need other examples?
“fact-under sea cables and radio towers etc”
Actually, you’re right about international phone and data communications, except that it’s closer to 99.9% via undersea optical cables; this is due mostly to bandwidth limits. But satellite communications is used for virtually all broadcast purposes, as it’s much easier to reach a widely distributed set of receivers that way. How do you think satellite television (e.g., DISH Network and DirecTV in the US, Sky in the UK, etc.) works? Not to mention the distribution of network TV and radio programming to affiliates worldwide. I have no Ida what you mean by “radio towers” here, unless you think there are radio towers in the middle of the ocean. You’re also neglecting the GPS and GLONASS navigation systems, and the Iridium satellite phone system, all of which are obviously (and easy to demonstrate to be) satellite-based. Finally, there are the AMSAT series of amateur radio satellites, which thousands of ham radio operators around the world have used (not to mention amateur communications with the ISS).
“fact-no old satellites to appreciate”
See above; there are actually quite a few. The AMSAT satellites, in particular, are regularly used by school kids. See
http://www.amsat.org
So, three strikes in a row – you’re out. So it appears that you are either quite ignorant in these areas, or were aware of all of this and intentionally lying. Which is it? But…it was nice talking! 😉
bobm73 I remember when the first satellite tv broadcast was made, I am not sure which points on the globe where connected by satellite, but Walter Cronkite was very excited to be talking to someone halfway around the globe and seeing him too.
All you have to do to prove that water is curved is to look at a drop form from a faucet run some water then close the faucet until just a drop or two is running you should be able to close it down until just one drop forms very slowly you can very easily observe the curve as it forms, it is never flat.
That doesnt prove its curved its not consistent in its shape if i dropped a spoon it doesnt change shape stop with the bad science
TomTrevor bobm73 Tom, that’s surface tension at work; I don’t see how it would have much to do with whether or not oceans follow the Earth’s surface curvature (which of course is due to the workings of gravity on a fluid).
Of course, at this scale of mass the “solid” constituents of the Earth (or any other planetary-sized mass) have to act as a fluid, too; there’s no natural material strong enough to keep something the mass of the Earth (or even a good deal smaller) from winding up in an approximately spherical object.
In connection with this comment the deepest hole i think was in Russia called koke only got down 13 km which throws doubt on all the diagrams we were made to draw at school about the earths layers
mattj1971 Thank you that is basically what I recall,that the Russians drilled about 5 miles down, I’ll go with 13 Kms. But there has to be another side of the earth, doesn’t there? The question isn’t how far have people drilled but how far is the other side? Or maybe if will drill too far we find Hell, either way wouldn’t that be something cool do?
I have no idea what diagrams you were “forced’ to draw in school.
How does this “throw doubt” on anything? We didn’t find out about the Earth’s inner structure by drilling; it was determined through seismological methods. See:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/structureOfEarth.html
You can think of this as being analogous to the way ultrasound is used to “see inside” the human body.
And also note that this wouldn’t work as it does if the Earth was a flat disc.
Ok im being the devils advocate here but that doesnt prove the earth is round it measures density it also states what the core is made of which they couldnt tell what metal etc was there
mattj1971 It doesn’t exactly prove the Earth is a sphere – but it absolutely could not be flat and get the results that they do. Remember, the technique involved here is to look at the measurements of seismological events (either natural or man-made, i.e., subterranean explosions) made at various sites around the world. We know how quickly those waves pass through materials of various densities, so you can get a very good idea of what the internal structure looks like. And the fact that these waves arrive at the times they do at the various sites DOES give very strong evidence that the Earth cannot be flat, and must in fact be a fairly compact (relatively speaking) three-dimensional object – and it’s most likely a sphere.
As to the materials – no, these measurements do not tell what the core is made of. But they do indicate that the core is a much denser material than the crust or the mantle, and in addition we know that the Earth has a magnetic field. That could not be unless the core was made of some sort of magnetic material, and of the limited number of possible candidates, iron (with a small amount of nickel, most likely) is by far the most likely. We know THAT because we know how common the various elements are in the universe, and especially in our solar system. So an iron core is at the very least the most likely explanation, and that’s what scientific theories are all about – finding the best, most likely explanation which is consistent with ALL the evidence.
This is what the “flat Earth” proponents, and others in the pseudoscience arena, so often neglect – that it’s not really all that convincing if you just point out one particular point (especially if all you can say about it amounts to “I don’t understand how this would work!”). Scientific explanations – “theories” – have to match up with ALL the evidence, and what we wind up with is a very large set of theories, all of which are consistent with one another. The picture we have of our world is like a giant tapestry; ALL of the threads have to tie together, and if you try to change just one (like believing the Earth to be flat instead of spherical), you quickly find that the overall picture doesn’t stay together any more. But parts of that picture are things we KNOW, with very gig certainty, to be true: that gravity exists, for just one example, or how large and how far away the Sun and the Moon are. So if that “one thread” you’re trying to change doesn’t fit in with all the rest, it’s very unlikely that it’s “all the rest” that is wrong.
Yeah point taken bob and i agree with you on most things
mattj1971 But wouldn’t a flat earth that was 24.000 miles thick or even 12,500 miles thick seem a bit odd? As Bobm73 says we know what is below the surface, not by drilling, but by other techniques. There is no known natural process that can explain how a flat earth could formed that is as thick as we know the earth to be. So a flat Earth that is so thick could only have been created by a God. But even that seems odd, since there seems to be no reason why the Earth should be as thick as it is, It is hard to imagine way a God would have made the Earth even 5 miles thick.
Ok guys here’s this with no editorial comment from me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/05/mysterious-radio-signals-from-space-are-much-better-test-of-einsteins-general-relativity/
Here’s this, I have no editorial comment at all on it, what you make of it is up to you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/05/mysterious-radio-signals-from-space-are-much-better-test-of-einsteins-general-relativity/
Here are more observations for you flat earthers to ponder. I have seen three space shuttle launches, so these must have been the ones where the crashed them into the ocean , correct? But how do you explain this, I have heard a space shuttle return to Earth. We were told on tv that one of the space shuttles would come over Sarasota Fl at a certain time, as best as I remember it was around 1pm, we were told we would likely hear it but not see it since it was 100,000 ft high and moving very fast. so we got lawn chairs binoculars and watched NASA TV on my laptop. Well there is a delay as NASA tv get processed and sent out to the internet So we started anticipating the Shuttle as soon as we saw from NASA it was over the Gulf of Mexico.
Wouldn’t you know it at the time TV the shuttle would be over Sarasota we saw and heard nothing, but a few second later, maybe 30-45 seconds we clearly heard two sonic booms. The local Tv had indeed told us that there would be two sonic booms and how far apart they would be. darn if it wasn’t exactly what we were told on TV. Remember the sound reached us after the shuttle passed over head. How do they do that? Do they send out jet fighters to come in over Mexico (because people in Mexico would hear a sonic boom too).
The shuttle is still traveling well over the speed of sound as it starts making S turns to slow, down, in this flight the shuttle would have been heard by many people in Florida from Sarasota to Cape Canaveral. The general public was allowed to watch the landing of these later shuttle missions, although the public has to request tickets months in advance. So how do they do that? Fake the sonic boom all over Florida, and then fake the landing at exactly the time the said it would land.
I didnt know hearing something now constituted as it must be..i heard a bang in the other room therefore it must be a ghost..stop with the long winded explanations..take your own advice if anyone else had put up they heard something you would be on them like a shot
WELCOME TO THE TOMTREVOR WEBSITE where your questions will be met with veciferous response you will be expected to listen to my side whilst i will treat yours with disdain and insult..remember there is only one side to any argument and that is mine for i have been everywhere and know all infact i might change my name to oracle as i have nothing else to do all day but sit here waiting to bestow the world with my wisest view.I may throw some really bad examples that make me seem clever but anyone with half a brain would laugh at
Ha ha…very good Matt and well said . You haven’t me Soaring eagle yet either . These guys should be running NASA . Neil Degrass Tyson doesn’t speak as much shit in a year as these guys speak in a day . I hope you watched that video with the girl floating upward in the ISS ? That for me is proof they film these interviews in a big antigravity room .
Austruth Yeah, well we wait for your proofs and evidence that such technology as “big antigravity rooms” exist. You claim to only believe on what you can see, so have you ever seen an antigravity room? You also claim that gravity doesn’t exist (if i remember clearly), so how could there be “antigravity rooms” ?
Ha ha and another one which I wasn’t talking to comes out of the woodwork . Because that’s what there called . If I said non up and down room would that be better?
Austruth I asked you proofs and evidences.
rhooManu Austruth I don’t want u to be a troll , I know were trapped into having to find money , reclaim your power our oceans do not curve . I never had a grandfather and my dad was sent Vietnam . you don’t live on a ball , its your’s from here
“I don’t want u to be a troll”
Why, afraid of competition?
“our oceans do not curve.”
Of course they do, since the Earth is round.
“you don’t live on a ball”
Of course we do. We ALL do, since the Earth is round.
See, that’s what’s called “making assertions.” And simply saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true. If you’re going to say something like “the oceans do not curve” or “you don’t live on a ball,” you’re going to have to give some actual reasons as to why we should think that is true. And that doesn’t mean just giving a link to yet another silly video that does nothing more than make those same claims. You have to actually answer some questions, starting with some of the REALLY obvious ways that we know the Earth is round and not flat. All the many, many questions that have been asked and continue to go unanswered. Otherwise, you just look sillier and sillier. So how about actually at least TRYING to come up with some real answers for a change, or at least have the cojones to admit that you can’t.
So as you said: it’s yours from here.
Austruth Oh, and I STILL wait for you to answer those basics questions :
— How is it possible to join south africa from south america in a few hours with planes if they are opposed on a flat earth ?
— How do the sun and the moon hang and move in the sky ?
— If the earth is flat, why the sun or the moon aren’t ?
— What create seasons ?
— If the earth is flat and gravity don’t exist, on WHAT is laying the earth. A giant table ?
All answered . Do some research !!! Actually I don’t know why your asking as I’m sure you’ve seen these answered before . Must be your turn on shift today is it ? LOL
Austruth Well if you already answered, i’m sure you’re able to do it again.
Austruth No, these have not been answered; they have simply been asserted in any number of nonsensical videos, with no real explanation ever provided. If you have seen an actual explanation, I’m sure we’d all be very interested in seeing it. In fact, I believe you recently said yourself that you questioned how travel in the southern hemisphere would be possible as it currently exists, given the flat Earth model. So is that explained, now, to your satisfaction, or isn’t it? And if it IS, how about sharing that explanation with the rest of us?
bobm73 Wait, I want HIS explanations. Austruth
rhooManu bobm73 Austruth So do I! We’re all waiting, Aus – please, continue!
bobm73 rhooManu Austruth Maybe airlines have already invented the ability to create and travel through wornholes without any of the passengers noticing..
Ok rhoo heres a question,do you believe in god?
mattj1971 I don’t believe or believe. I don’t know if there’s a god and this question doesn’t matter to me. I can’t really see the point here — and I really, deeply hope you’re not going to tell me that god made the whole universe to put humains on it earth and that’s why earth is flat and at the center of everything.
No nothing like that but you say you dont believe or believe …fair enough it just seems strange that people tip toe round a subject like that but if anyone questions NASA then people cant comprehend it,i think its forgotten that NASAis part of the US military and was started off by Nazi scientists to gain the upper hand over USSR.There are bug questions about the moon landings,the van allen belt etc
mattj1971 Okay, sorry.
But you know, NASA isn’t part of US military, it’s a government agency. A part of multiple agencies in fact. The Department of Defense have a higher budget than NASA, and it’s them who are in charge of major military spatial stuff. NRO, NGA, NOAA and TOGA are some other parts of it.
What is true is that NASA where created in a context of military space run. Moreover, NASA isn’t the only spatial agency in the world, other countries have their own (Japan, Russia, France, China, Canada, Israeli, UK, Italy, India, Iran, and the ESA is a global European Agency. So, chasing after some “NASA conspiracy” isn’t really a point.
Moreover, NASA was created in 1958, a long time after the 3rd Reich fall. There’s Nothing up with Nazis in there, juste some old scientists who worked under the 3rd Reich were employed by NASA. Some of them were nazis. This doesn’t make the whole agency a nazi creation.
And I still can’t see no bug about the moon landings, nor the van allen belt (which proves that earth isn’t flat). Van Allen himself helped NASA’s engineer to study this point, they found the better way to go through, and voila. High altitude pilots are way more exposed to radiations of the belt than the astronauts of Apollo were. I’ve seen many, many conspiracy stories about the moon landing, and I didn’t find any who was unbeatable.
rhooManu mattj1971 rhooManu, in a nutshell, absolutely correct. In fact there are over 60 countries with their own national space programs, plus a number of privately owned companies. There is no evidence at all that the moon landings were faked, in fact quite the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that we did indeed land on the moon, including the junk and the equipment that was left behind.
There’s also no doubts about the Van Allen belts. Sure NASA has said that they need to test a new vehicle in the Van Allen belts. What is wrong with that? Electronics are much smaller than they used to be, you would like to know if your guidance system is going to survive before sending anyone up in a new craft. We also crash test new car designs, and we know a lot more about auto-mobile engineering than we do about space travel.
Good god you really do believe everything you are told dont you!Pilots in planes are more at risk than someone travelling in space you say!!!do you want to re think that one again.NASA was started in 1958 yes and you say this was a long time after the third reich…i see history is not your strong point.Old Newsflash Russia was never really the best of friends with US or UK.Look you go on believing everything is ok and politicians and the rest of the ruling classes are losing sleep worrying how they can make your life better,sorry but your being conned there isnt going to be a space plane that you can go for a ride on not in your or your grand childrens lifetime.Dont be angry or frustrated that people pass through here questioning things..you have the right to be angry yes but you should be angry about the amount of horse shit you are being fed daily
mattj1971 I don’t believe everything is okay and polititians are good. I believe that this has absolutely Nothing to do with anything.
So, you’re going to tell me 3rd Reich didn’t end in 1945 ?
What’s the point with Russia not being friend with US ? How is it related to 3rd Reich, exactly?
And, by the way, I don’t have to believe anything that’s being said. I trust in researches, mathematics, science and expérimentations. So when I doubt something, I just read, experiment, calculate, and therefore understand. And if Something proves me that I did wrong, I can re-do it with some new improvements. This is exactly how science work. (See attached picture).
Therefore, I can understand what I explain, and this is exactly what lacks people who believe in flat earth. I can explain seasons, how and why it’s happening — they can’t. I can explain why a piano and a ball would fall exactly at the same speed and would touch the ground at the same time. I can explain why you can drop an apple from the top of a moving boat and see it fall straight to the ground and not away. I can explain why there are sunrises, why the moon has influence on the seas. Because I understand all of this. I understand all of this because I studied all of this.
Really, why do the cleverest people of the planet, who are creating new elements in the periodic table, who are worting on atoms, neutrinos, particles, dark matter, make fabulous progress in médicine, electronic, robotic and absolutely more complicated stuff that we couldn’t even mentally approach don’t believe a second in a flat earth?
More than that, you’re claiming that I’m the one who’s being fed with shit, but do you really, really think that you’d have come up with those flat earth thinking if you didn’t read some stuff about this, or saw some videos ? This aren’t your ideas. There are ideas of some people who claim to be better than experts of their domains. And this is exactly where the problem is.
mattj1971 “Pilots in planes are more at risk than someone travelling in space you say!!!”
Read it again – because that’s NOT what he said. He said that high-altitude pilots (i.e., those who routinely fly at high altitudes, like commercial airline pilots) risk more exposure to radiation that the astronauts on the Apollo missions – and that is absolutely correct. The cumulative exposure of such pilots is measurably greater than was the exposure on any Apollo mission, by a considerable margin.
Matt, words written on Von Braun,s headstone . Psalm 19.1 the heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. By no means am I religious but it sure sound like he was And he believed something was in the sky .
Yeah i heard this..you listened to mark sargent aswell…lol
First thing I did was confirm that . I believe mark used the word firmament but didn’t he ? That guy he debated dint have a clue . Wish one of these guys on here would . https://youtu.be/Kf0Xm3CUL_I . Another good one I watched today
Theres some good points here bet nobody else will watch it though
mattj1971 Another video that mentions relativity but doesn’t understand it. And yet another example of someone stating that something ‘simply can’t work unless the Earth is stationary’ without explaining why. It’s just another example of pseudo-science. I have debated this guy before. He does not understand relativity at all, has no clue as to what mechanics are at work in simple examples of movement and no clue as to how forces work.
And you have a complete understanding of relativity?
mattj1971 Absolutely not. But this man claims to understand that it don’t exist.
You answer for sly aswell this gets better..tag debating
mattj1971 Well, as you forget to quote who you’re talking to, it’s hard to understand who’s supposed to answer. Sorry.
You dont get it..if you are so scientifically gifted do you not think for a moment the theory you believe is not incredible.lets say for a moment you are correct and you are standing on a giant ball of dirt 25000 miles round spinning at 1000 miles an hour and moving through dpsce at 66000 miles per hour and you have no real proof that this is happening yourself and your attitude is “how dare someone question this”or even worse to be so nonchalant about it.
mattj1971 This is not a gift at all, this is some work. Only work.
mattj1971 “You dont get it..if you are so scientifically gifted do you not think for a moment the theory you believe is not incredible.lets say for a moment you are correct and you are standing on a giant ball of dirt 25000 miles round spinning at 1000 miles an hour and moving through dpsce at 66000 miles per hour and you have no real proof that this is happening yourself”
But that’s just it, Matt – there IS proof of all of this, very, very solid proof. Whether you think these numbers are “incredible” or not doesn’t change reality one bit. The numbers are impressive, but the more you look into the situation the more you realize that no matter how you FEEL about them, they HAVE to be correct. We do live in a truly remarkable universe; there’s no need to try to reduce it to something which at first glances LOOKS simpler, but which turns out to be a physical impossibility. Supposing that the Earth is flat may initially SEEM to agree better with what you see and how you feel – but there are SO many problems with that model. It breaks down as soon as you start looking into them to any real degree at all. Why do you think so many of the questions that have been raised here, by myself and others, remain unanswered? They’re not all that difficult – if the model is solid, if it at all reflects reality, then they should be quite easy to answer. Yet we never, ever get ANYTHING.
mattj1971 “Theres some good points here bet nobody else will watch it though”
Obviously, Matt, you would’ve lost your bet.
But no, there really aren’t any good points here. The person who made this video – presumably the one providing the narration – clearly does not understand some very basic principles of physics, let alone relativity. (The mention of relativity was silly anyway – none of the points made require relativity at all in order to address (and completely debunk) them. (There’s a major danger here of thinking that Einstein must somehow get involved just because we ask the question “relative to WHAT?” in cases of velocity, direction, etc..) Another trick that makes the “points” this video supposedly raises SEEM a lot more solid than they really are is that essentially NONE of the motions shown are shown to anything remotely like the proper scale, relative to one another (e.g., the motion of aircraft relative to the Earth’s rotation). And simply declaring something to be “magic” or “impossible” does not make it so, and is not evidence of it being so. Aircraft move within the mass of air in which they are flying, and it’s as simple as that. The question then becomes how we would expect that mass of air to move relative to the surface, and this is not addressed at all.
The entire video is just more of the same. Not once does he try to show how any of this SHOULD work with actual quantitative calculations (and we should definitely ask – why not?). If you want to declare something to be wrong, or to be a “trick,” you need to actually SHOW that – not to simply continue to make sneering sounds and declaring that it cannot be (which really is simply “*I* don’t understand this, therefore it’s wrong!”
Not exactly a very strong argument, is it?
Austruth Yeah, again this brave man didn’t just experiment how everything work. No, the rotation of the earth don’t have effects on flying objects. This is exactly what describes the theory of relativity, that he just deny without even understanding it. And he would just need to let fall a pen in a moving train to see this.
Why does the pen fall the way it does on a train?
mattj1971 Simply because the pen is propulsed by the train at the same speed of you and everything else that’s in. This is exactly what’s described by the restrained relativity theory : if i’m Inside an object moving at a constant speed, I can’t feel the speed of it. This is why in a plane, you’re pulled down in your seat at the gaing of speed, and not when you’re at cruise speed.
This is exactly why astronauts in the ISS are floating. Everything in the ISS is falling in orbit, at the same speed. It’s easiest to just imagine a falling elevator: if the ground fall at the same speed as you, there is no reason that you’d be pinned on it. But if the roof falls at the same speed too, there’s no more reason to be pinned on it. So the cabin is falling in the building, you are falling in the building, but you’re floating in the cabin. Therefore, an “antigravity room” like described by our friend Austruth would require an incredibly high building in an incredibly large cabin.
So your daying Einsteins theory is 100%correct?
I meant saying
mattj1971 No, I’m saying that what describes einsteins theories are experimentable by yourself.
mattj1971 I don’t need to have a complete understand of relativity to recognise when someone hasn’t got a clue.
Scientists are still testing and still trying to break Einstein’s relativity 100 years later. And these are people who understand it, who have the necessary budget and equipment. And the only way they can even hope to break it is in the very limits of it’s predictions. There is nothing that it does not explain here on Earth that has not already been rigorously tested and confirmed by 1000’s of scientists.
So forgive me if I am dismissive of some idiot on Youtube who doesn’t understand the most basic concepts of relativity when he simply states that relativity is wrong.
And there you go resort to calling someone an idiot for questioning something..as i keep saying scientific breakthroughs are made by questioning things which is what people are doing …better to question and be wrong than just accept..stop being a passenger,do a little driving
mattj1971 Questionning is different than denying. All that is done here is denying.
mattj1971 Like I said. I have debated him. And questioning is okay. But stating something is incorrect when you don’t even understand it is not at all scientific. And I am hardly a passenger. I did my engineering degree, I have dome my share of experimentation, I know what physics works in the real world, my life has depended on my understanding of physics on several occasions. I stand by my opinion of MyPerspective who produced the video. He is a fool who does not understand the science he is trying so desperately to disagree with. I know he states things are a certain way without taking any kind of measurements as I have questioned him on this. I know he doesn’t understand relativity as I have questioned him on that also. I am not generalising in my comment in any way. in my opinion it was a very fair criticism of the guy who made the video.
mattj1971 It’s exactly the opposite, Matt – Sly isn’t calling that person an idiot because they questions the “accepted theory.” But he is very correct in dismissing this person for FAILING to question the ideas that he himself is trying to promote. It’s very easy to simply declare that you think the current model is wrong; calling it “trickery” goes well beyond that, though, don’t you think? And calling something ELSE wrong does NOT mean that YOUR idea is right – you have to DEMONSTRATE that it is right, and that’s something that these “videos” (and articles, and etc., etc., etc.) consistently fail to do.
And in that case, I’d be sorely tempted to use the word “idiot” myself, out of sheer frustration.
mattj1971 “So you’re saying Einstein’s theory is 100% correct?”
Here’s the thing about scientific theories that most people just don’t get – they are NEVER believed to be “proven” or “100% correct.” In science, all theories are ALWAYS open to question and to further experimentation; that’s how progress is made. Einstein’s theories may yet be shown, through such questioning and experimentation, to need refinement or maybe (very unlikely, but maybe) will need to be abandoned altogether. But they have been tested repeatedly for over 100 years at this point, and have held up quite well to that testing.
That’s what makes a scientific theory “accepted” – scientists continue to poke at it, testing it, looking for holes, errors, etc.. As enough time goes by without anyone finding such problems, the theory becomes more widely accepted. We never would say that Einstein’s theories have been “proven” beyond any possible doubt – but they are by far the best explanation we have to date for how things behave, especially very massive or very fast things.
You obviously didn’t listen carefully enough or you don’t understand what he was saying . Or 3 or on here to discourage. How can the earth be travelling at 66000 miles per hour around the sun and not ever change velocity . The sun would catch up to it when it was in front of it . Understand? . I didn’t until he pointed it out either so I will forgive you for being a bit slow .
Austruth Why should the earth change its velocity, exactly ?
Watch the video . I’m not sitting here explaining it to you . Then you can put your point across
Austruth No no no no. If you can’t explain something by yourself, you can’t pretend to understand it. It’s as simple as that. Each time I ask you to explain Something, you just say “whatch a video”. Each time i make an argumented answer, I explain everything. If you can’t do the same, don’t even try to argue, thanks.
I have not got the visuals like the video . I can explain it but why should I when he does such a good job .
Austruth 1. Because he absolutely doesn’t do a good job.
2. To prove that you really understand. I won’t believe that you can if you don’t do it. Until then, I’ll be persuaded that you don’t understand.
I was talking to matt anyway so I don’t care what you think
Austruth You’re saying to matt that you shouldn’t explain what I asked you to explain? Wait, what?
Austruth If you think he “does such a good job,” then that in itself is evidence that you do not in fact understand the situation.
Austruth Pretty sure the Earth doesn’t go ‘in front’ of the sun at any stage in it’s orbit.
slymonster Austruth I wonder just which side of the Sun is the “front,” anyway? Could we tell by looking for the front porch, perhaps?
bobm73 slymonster Austruth I assume he means the direction that the sun is travelling through our galaxy. Which would of course mean that the Earth does not at any time during it’s yearly orbit get ‘in front’ of it.
As we should know, if you look at the solar system (simply) as a flat disk, lying on a table, with the planets orbiting the sun on the same plane as the table, the sun would be travelling through our solar galaxy on a upwards trajectory. At no point would the Earth be ‘in front’ of the sun so that there would be any danger of the sun ‘catching up’ to the Earth.
Okay, the solar system isn’t actually flat and planets don’t really orbit the sun in circles. It is much more complicated, but can be envisaged in this way if you want to describe it as a system.Is that too Engineery?
This is another example of people just stating that something is not possible when they don’t even understand what it is they are saying is not possible.
Austruth “How can the earth be travelling at 66000 miles per hour around the sun and not ever change velocity”
Change its velocity with respect to WHAT? See, that’s the subtle little point that the creator of that video kept failing to address – just what “velocity” he was talking about. Had he kept that straight, there would be no apparent problem – just as there is no REAL problem to begin with.
mattj1971
“i think its forgotten that NASAis part of the US military and was started off by Nazi scientists to gain the upper hand over USSR.”
Sorry, Matt, but that just isn’t so. NASA is a completely separate government agency, and not a part of the military. Military personnel participating in NASA projects (for example, almost all of the Mercury-Gemini “classes” of astronauts do remain a part of the military, but are serving on “detached” duty; their bosses at NASA are NOT military officers. Nor was NASA started by Nazi scientists. Dr. Wernher von Braun and his team, who certainly had worked for the Nazis during the war, left their base at Peenumude and surrendered to the U.S. Army before Germany itself surrendered (as they feared capture by the Soviets, and instead wished to defect to America). The German team actually began work under the U.S. Army in 1945, and worked at Fort Bliss in Texas as part of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency.
NASA, on the other hand, grew out of the previous NACA (National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics), and was not formed until 1958, and AFTER the Jupiter-C rocket designed by von Braun’s team had launched Explorer 1, the first American satellite, still under the ABMA.
Von Braun’s team was assimilated into NASA as part of the transfer of many military space-related efforts into the new agency, but that team did not “start” NASA.
“There are bug questions about the moon landings,the van allen belt etc.”
No, there really aren’t at this point – but if you would like to discuss any that you think remain unaddressed, please post the specifics here.
Hey thanks for clearing that up for me..just to recap and summarise what ypour saying..NASA is in no way anything to do with the miliary and was not started using nazi scientists..funny but i thought above your saying that NADA was started using nazi engineers..oh yeah it was the good nazis that surrendered so they didnt get captured by the Russians..mmm and of course NASA took tese scientists and thought hey these guys can build rockets that can fire missiles for miles,maybbe we could do something with their knowledge to benefit mankind as we are good and in no way connected to the military..no the military really wouldnt want to speak to these guys with their cutting edge technology on delivering payloads of explosives hundreds of miles..no we can use them to build a rocket to grow cress in!!!So come on then lets hear these pearls of wisdom on the van allen belt
mattj1971 There must be some wizardry in this thing !
I know what the van allen belt IS please explain how the astronauts got through it…in your own words please
mattj1971 This doesn’t show what the van allen belt is, it explain how the astronauts got throug it.
But okay, i’ll explain: it’s called a belt because this is a tore. Basically, they just avoided the center of the tore.
…Hey wait, you can’t know what van allen belt is, because you can’t believe van allen belt exist, because you believe the earth is flat. Van Allen believed the earth was a globe, so he’s obviously wrong. So there’s no Van Allen belt. 😀
mattj1971 How the astronauts got through the Van Allen belts:
1. Fairly quickly
2. At a relatively high angle, so as to avoid the more intense equatorial regions of the Belts, and
3. In a spacecraft constructed of a fairly complex shell with inner and outer aluminum skins, an internal “honeycomb” layer, and additional materials, all of which combined to provide a fair amount of shielding.
There are actually two Van Allen belts: an inner one composed chiefly of protons, and the larger, outer one which is primarily electrons. The outer belt doesn’t present much of a hazard; electrons (“beta” radiation) are non-penetrating, and easily stopped by a thin layer of – well, almost anything. The inner (proton) belt was the primary concern, but as the diagram shows the most intense areas were bypassed and the relatively low-intensity regions were handled by the spacecraft’s hull.
If you REALLY want all the details – but I’ll warn you, there’s a good deal of math involved – see:
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
You will find that this is not only a completely independent calculation of the estimated exposure of Apollo astronauts to the Van Allen radiation, but that the estimates agree quite well with the measured data from the dosimeters each Apollo astronaut wore. There’s also a fair amount of detail regarding the construction of the spacecraft hull and its shielding capabilities.
Yes wizardry…haha mmmmm ha
mattj1971 Matt, I can’t tell if by “NADA” you meant “NASA” or “NACA,” but neither was started using the “Nazi” engineers (von Braun’s team). NACA dated back to well before WW2 (it was started in 1915), and was “morphed into” NASA in 1958, as NASA was built from several predecessor organizations in an attempt to combine all US aeronautical and space research and development efforts under a single organization. Von Braun’s ABMA was a part of that, but was by no means the whole thing. Von Braun basically continued on in the development of launch vehicles, primarily the Saturn series, which grew out of the earlier Redstone and Jupiter efforts. NASA space missions initially used military vehicles which had been developed by others (except for two Redstone flights, the Mercury missions used the Atlas ballistic missile which had been designed and built by Convair, while the Gemini missions all used Martin’s Titan II). Von Braun’s team also had essentially nothing to do with the design of the manned spacecraft (the Mercury and Gemini capsules, and the Apollo CSM/LM).
As to the Van Allen belt, please see my other response on that subject.
rhooManu Austruth a giant table … THATS IT !!
michael mcelligott I need to have one like this, wich wood is it made of ? It would be so great for a desktop. rhooManu Austruth
Austruth Where, exactly, do you find an “anti-gravity room?” There’s absolutely no known way to counter gravity on Earth – the best that can be done is to simulate a “zero-G” environment by flying parabolic arcs in an airplane. But the most you can get at any one time, via that method, is around 30 seconds of effective “zero-G”. So any video you see which shows such an environment and has a continuous shot of longer than that could not possibly have been made in that manner. So in order for this to be “proof” that they “film these interviews in a big antigravity room,” don’t you think you’d need to have some reason to believe that such things exist – outside of on a real space station, like the ISS – in the first place?
And why SHOULDN’T she be floating upward, or any which way? What would you expect to happen? It would be very, very odd for her to be perfectly motionless, especially if she moves her limbs at all. Would you expect that there would be no air currents?
mattj1971 I didn’t see any questions, just “this is impossible, water does not curves, lol”.
Tomtrevor was saying water curves i just pointed out water is not a consistent shape
mattj1971 Yep, it’s http://www.livefyre.com/profile/97076253/ who said this : “water doesn’t ‘curve’ it sits level in any container its in no matter how big or small”.
Just in case y’all missed this:
This year is shaping up as a bumper year in space with new missions ready to launch, deep space missions wrapping up, and commercial space going heavy. It’s a year when spacecraft ditch on comets, rendezvous with asteroids, lift off for Mars, and arrive at Jupiter. It’s also a year when rockets get bigger, space planes roll out, and winds get tracked. To get the lowdown on the highlights, here’s a looks at where space exploration is taking us in 2016.
http://www.gizmag.com/2016-space-year-highlights/41049/
slymonster Can’t wait for public space trips to see earth from some high distance. And see flat-earthers deny what they saw, claim that they were in a simulator with CGI and holograms.
rhooManu slymonster Sod that. I’m gonna ask for the Wild West holodeck program, with famous actresses as the hookers.
slymonster well done sly , I envy your income
Space planes?really?
Now i know the Truth.
(I did this while preparing the meal; couldn’t resist, sorry. ♥)
rhooManu Ha ha.
stay away from this site kids
I’ll tell you what watch 200 proofs the earth isn’t a spinning globe, and then read your 10. Then tell me that at the core of your heart you still believe. I’ll be honest I’ve never till today have ever believed that the earth was flat until I watched a couple of videos today.
YoungCanable I have watched it. It’s just nonsense pseudo-science. I don’t just believe the Earth is a spinning globe, I know it is. We have the evidence that says it is. The ‘Flat Earth’ idea is just nonsense.
So YOU know..WE have proved it..What have you proved?where were you in these experiments?YOU simply accept someones theory..simple as that
mattj1971 So YOU know that unicorns don’t exist? Or do you just accept someones theory that say they don’t?
Are we debating the existence of unicorns?
mattj1971 We’re debating the argumentative mold that you use to deny proven facts and evidences.
Argumentitive mold?
mattj1971 “Moisissure argumentative”. But i don’t know how it’s said in English. Basically, you reverse the charge of the proof, saying he can’t be right because he wasn’t there and stuff.
We are in deep trouble if we start relying on my rotten French, but I think the closest translation into English would be “fallacious argument” or “logical fallacy.” “Moissisure” IS “mold” in English (mold as in the stuff that grows on bread, not what you put molten metal into to cast something), and I suspect in French it literally means “a rotten (moldy) argument” (?), but that direct translation is not used in English to refer to a faulty or illogical line of reasoning. In English, the more common phrase is “logical fallacy,” as in “the false dichotomy is a common form of logical fallacy.”
And the only thing i have denied is the true origins of NASA
“So YOU know..WE have proved it..What have you proved?where were you in these experiments?YOU simply accept someones theory..simple as that”
Not at all. I don’t know what exposure, or formal education/experience, in science you may have had, but anyone who has been through pretty much any undergrad science program will have performed many of the classic experiments for themselves, and will have seen many of the rest demonstrated, and will certainly have had to do the math behind most of them. In addition, most of us who are professional scientists or engineers also tend to have somewhat “techie” hobbies (in my case, amateur radio and astronomy, among others), so no, we’re NOT just accepting someone’s theory by taking their word for it. And you’ll note that this has been a point I’ve made all along: YOU don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, either! It may take a little work, but if you are really interested in determining the truth for yourself, you can. It’s not THAT hard.
YoungCanable Every single “proofs” of this “200 profs the earth isn’t a spinning globe” are easilly crushed by simple thinking. The amount of “proofs” don’t mean it’s best. There aren’t just 10 proofs that it’s flat, this is a top 10 of simple and expérimentables ones.
YoungCanable “I’ll tell you what watch 200 proofs the earth isn’t a spinning globe, and then read your 10.”
Been there, done that; it’s still round.
“200 Proofs…” should more honestly be titled “200 Proofs That Eric Dubay Doesn’t Understand Basic Geometry or Physics.” For one thing, there are nowhere near 200 distinct “proofs” there (not that any of them actually prove anything); most are simply different examples of the same thing, and NONE of them stand up to any serious inquiry. A very few look sound at first glance, but really aren’t. And nowhere are some of the very basic (and very serious – fatal, in fact) objections to the notion of a “flat Earth” addressed.